wait_for_import

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

The description extensively covers behavioral traits beyond annotations: exponential backoff (2s → 1.5× → cap 30s), default timeout 600s, timeout response format, and result count summary on terminal states. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; the description adds rich operational details.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, backoff, timeout behavior, and output details. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key action.

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 thorough given the tool's complexity and the presence of output schema and annotations. It covers polling behavior, timing, and output on timeout and terminal states. Lacks mention of immediate return if import is already terminal, but overall 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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. The description provides global context for timeout default, but that is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 polls get_import_status until a terminal state, listing all possible terminal states. It specifies the resource (import) and the action (wait for termination), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_import_status which does a single check.

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 implicitly guides usage by detailing the polling behavior and timeout handling, including the instruction to re-call on POLLING response. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_import_status or cancel_import.

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