operations__wait_command

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that this is a wrapper with no own throttling but consumes underlying API quota, and raises TimeoutError. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then error, then correlationId sourcing, then quota/caching note. It is reasonably concise given the complexity, though slightly dense.

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?

It covers the core waiting behavior and correlationId sourcing, but omits return value (what happens on success) and leaves interval and organization_id unexplained. For a wrapper with an existing get_command_status sibling, some of this is acceptable, but the gaps are notable.

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 coverage, the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It explains correlation_id's origin and timeout implicitly via TimeoutError, but interval and organization_id are not described at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 waits for a terminal status (Success/Error) of a command, distinguishing it from a mere status check. It also names the TimeoutError condition, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (after a write-tool returns correlationId) and advises caching the result to avoid consuming API quota. It implies that for a single status check you'd use the sibling operations__get_command_status, though not explicitly.

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