pi_wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the significant blocking behavior and the 60-second per-call cap, but says nothing about timeout return semantics, error conditions, or whether waiting on already-completed workers is a no-op.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the blocking action, then the default, the timeout cap, and the return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

For a zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three parameters, the description covers the blocking behavior, default scope, timeout cap, and return payload. The unexplained 'any' mode and the absence of timeout/error behavior keep it from being 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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'ids' defaults to all running workers and that 'timeoutSec' is capped at 60, but it never explains the 'any' vs 'all' semantics of 'mode', leaving a key enum undocumented.

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+resource ('wait until the given workers ... finish') plus the observable outcome ('return their digests'), which is far more than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like pi_status or pi_digest, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives useful operating context ('default: all running', 'max 60 per call; call again to keep waiting'), which tells the agent how to invoke it repeatedly. It never says when to prefer this over pi_status/pi_digest or what happens on timeout, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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