wait_generationPoll a generation task until it completes, fails, or times out; completed results return a signed output URL.
Poll until completed/failed or timeout. Completed responses include a signed outputUrl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generationId | Yes | ||
| timeoutSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it blocks/polls, terminates on completed/failed/timeout, and completed responses carry a signed outputUrl. It does not state polling interval, timeout default, or what happens on timeout.
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 compact sentences with the terminal-state behavior front-loaded and the output detail second; no filler.
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 usefully notes the signed outputUrl return, but it omits timeout semantics (default/bounds/unit) and generationId expectations, leaving gaps for a two-parameter blocking 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only alludes to a timeout without explaining timeoutSeconds units, bounds, or the purpose of generationId. Most parameter meaning remains undocumented in both places.
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 action (poll) and terminal conditions (completed/failed/timeout), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_generation and list_generations. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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 polling-until-terminal behavior implies usage after a generation is started, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-get_generation guidance or any stated exclusions. Usage context is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.