worker_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the wait is bounded/time-limited, but it does not say what is returned or what happens when the window elapses without the task finishing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the termination condition is stated economically rather than padded.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the definition is too thin: neither the waitMs units/limits nor the post-timeout return state are explained, so an agent cannot fully reason about its behavior.

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 full burden. It alludes to a task and a 'bounded wait window' but never documents that waitMs is milliseconds, its 0-170000 range, or the behavior/default when waitMs is omitted, leaving the timeout semantics ambiguous.

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 (wait) and resource (Worker task) plus the termination condition (task finishes or wait window elapses). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the obvious alternative (worker_status) to differentiate a blocking wait from a poll.

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?

'Until the bounded wait window elapses' implies this is a blocking call as opposed to an immediate status poll, so the usage context is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use versus worker_status/worker_panel or any prerequisite is stated.

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