Slice and wait for result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the reuse of valid results, waiting behavior, and the return of final stats and warnings. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the described behavior of potentially starting a slice while not being destructive. It does not mention timeout/error behavior, but the extra context is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action (slice/wait) and clearly separates the return value. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core flow and return value, but lacks important contextual details such as what constitutes a 'valid result', how timeout works, and behavior on failure or cancellation. Given the presence of sibling tools for status and cancellation, a bit more context would help, but the description is adequate for a basic grasp of the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, 'timeout', with 0% description coverage. The description completely ignores this parameter, failing to explain its purpose, units, or behavior on timeout. Since the schema is bare and the description does not compensate, the agent has no guidance on how to set or interpret the timeout.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: slice (or reuse a valid result) and wait for completion, then return final stats and warnings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'slice' (just initiates) and 'get_slice_status' (just polls), making the tool's purpose explicit and specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case: when you want a synchronous slice operation that waits for completion and returns final results, as opposed to separately calling slice and polling status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.