wait_for_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the blocking nature, timeout behavior, and the differing return values on change vs. timeout (snapshot omitted when timeout). This provides meaningful context beyond basic read/write hints, though it does not cover error cases or side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the key behavioral aspects well: what triggers a result, what is returned on change, and what happens on timeout. It lacks error handling details (e.g., invalid graph_id), but for a simple blocking wait tool, the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 50% (timeout_ms has a description, graph_id does not). The description implies graph_id refers to the graph being watched, but adds no new detail about parameter format or constraints. It does not fully compensate for graph_id's missing schema description, but the parameter is self-explanatory from the tool name and context.

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 tool's function: it waits (blocks) until a node in the graph changes state or a timeout occurs. It also specifies the resource (graph nodes) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_execution or get_graph_state by focusing on the blocking wait behavior.

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 usage as a blocking wait for state changes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like polling with get_graph_state. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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