wait_thronglet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the timeout behavior (returns {session_id, state, queued} instead of an error), idempotency, and that results are persisted with the session. It stops short of auth requirements or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste; the primary behavior is front-loaded and the timeout and idempotency caveats follow logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: both the success path (run_thronglet JSON or its error) and the timeout path ({session_id, state, queued}). It leaves the possible 'state' values undefined, but for a wait primitive this is largely complete.

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 is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's timeout detail (state returned instead of error) mirrors the schema description rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (waits) and resource (session turn), and explicitly distinguishes itself from run_thronglet by noting it returns 'the same JSON as run_thronglet, or its error'. An agent can tell what this does and how it relates to the sibling without opening the schema.

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 tie to run_thronglet ('session_id from run_thronglet', 'same JSON as run_thronglet') implies this is used to await a previously started run, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor a named alternative (e.g., polling run_thronglet). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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