wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the call blocks until stall threshold or timeout, it returns 'the call to make next' rather than task data, and it is restricted to a lead that delegated the task. It stops short of saying what happens when the timeout elapses (error vs. partial result) or what the default threshold/timeout is.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and ends with the useful return-value note ('answer with the call to make next'). No filler, though the enumerated settle conditions make it slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 blocking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the blocking semantics and return nature reasonably well, but omits timeout behavior, default values, and any error/edge-case outcomes, leaving gaps an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 compensate, but it only obliquely references 'the timeout' and 'a task' without naming task_id or timeout_seconds, their formats, units, or defaults. The two undocumented parameters are effectively left to the agent's guesswork.

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 (task) and enumerates the three settle conditions: task settles, engine goes quiet past the stall threshold, or timeout. It does not name the sibling tools (check, result) that an agent might otherwise poll with, so the differentiation from those alternatives is left implicit.

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?

'A lead may wait only on a task it delegated' gives a real precondition for use, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over check/result/cancel, so the agent must infer the choice between waiting and polling from the sibling names alone.

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