wait_for_node

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

The description discloses blocking behavior (waits until found or timeout), return semantics (boolean whether found or timed out), and a runtime prerequisite (must be running via run_interactive). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It includes a purpose, a motivating use case, a return-value note, and a prerequisite without any fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (blocking wait, return value), the prerequisite for use (run_interactive), and a practical use case. The schema and annotations fill in parameter details and safety traits, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (nodePath and timeout) with examples and default values, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The description repeats the example node path format but does not introduce new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 action ('Block until a node appears in the scene tree') with a specific resource (scene tree node). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_signal by focusing on node appearance, and includes a concrete example ('Player/Sword' after equip). The verb 'block' and target 'node' make the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly notes it is 'useful for waiting on dynamically spawned nodes' and gives a typical use case. It also states a prerequisite: 'The project must be running via run_interactive.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., wait_for_signal for signals), though the context strongly implies the intended scenarios.

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