adl_wait

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the wait is bounded, but it does not explain what happens on timeout, whether the tool polls, or what result is returned when the condition is met, which is critical because there is no output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though for a tool with a nested condition object it borders on under-specification rather than well-judged concision.

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 three required parameters, a nested condition object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. It omits condition semantics, timeout outcome, session handling, and return behavior, so the agent cannot invoke it reliably without guessing.

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 must carry the burden. It vaguely maps 'semantic condition' to the condition parameter and 'bounded deadline' to timeout_ms, but it never explains session_id or the nested condition fields (name, role, state, element_id), leaving most parameter meaning 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 verb and resource ('Wait for a semantic condition') with a deadline qualifier, so it is not a tautology. However, 'semantic condition' is left undefined and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like adl_observe or adl_act, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of polling with adl_observe, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'bounded deadline' hints at a blocking wait, but the agent must infer when that is preferable.

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