wait_for_scripts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions blocking behavior and return structure (JSON array with specific fields). However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, error handling, or what happens if scripts never finish. Acceptable but could be more thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then details on return and optional behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Given simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, usage, return shape. Lacks timeout or error handling info, but not critical for this tool's typical use.

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?

Schema coverage 100% with only one param. Description adds behavioral nuance: omitting script_ids waits for all active scripts. This adds value beyond the schema's description of 'List of script IDs'.

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?

Clearly states it blocks waiting for script execution and returns results. Distinguishes from siblings like run_script (initiates) and script_status (check status without blocking). Also covers behavior when script_ids omitted.

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?

Explicitly recommends using after run_script to collect results. Implicitly suggests not using if scripts haven't been started. Could be improved by mentioning not to use if non-blocking check is needed.

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