wait-for-task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Wait for a specific task to complete', which implies a blocking or polling operation, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it polls (as suggested by the intervalMs parameter), returns upon completion or timeout, what happens on failure, or if it's resource-intensive. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, direct sentence: 'Wait for a specific task to complete'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (blocking/polling operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., task status, error on timeout), behavioral nuances like polling mechanics, or error handling. For a tool that likely involves waiting and state changes, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (taskUid, timeoutMs, intervalMs). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., polling with intervalMs until timeoutMs) or default behaviors. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Wait for a specific task to complete' clearly states the action (wait) and target (task), but it's vague about what 'wait' entails (e.g., polling, blocking) and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get-task' or 'get-tasks', which might retrieve task status without waiting. It specifies 'specific task' via the taskUid parameter, adding some specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskUid from another operation), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-task' (for immediate status checks) or 'list-tasks' (for overviews). Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.

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