wait_task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that the tool blocks until a terminal state or timeout, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether it returns or throws, or how terminal states are defined.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word carries meaning.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. An agent cannot reliably call it without knowing timeout units or the result/error behavior on timeout.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain both parameters. It implicitly links id to the task and timeout to a duration, but it does not specify the unit of timeout (e.g., seconds vs milliseconds), id format, or behavior when the timeout value is zero or negative.

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?

Description states a specific operation (block), a specific resource (task), and a precise condition (terminal state or timeout). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_task, list_tasks, and cancel_task, which do not block.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose wait_task over alternatives such as get_task, list_tasks, or watch_until. The description implies a use case but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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