wait_download

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the call blocks until completion or timeout and returns final status, but does not clarify timeout behavior, whether it polls or waits server-side, or whether cancellation affects the wait.

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 that communicates the core action and return without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple wait operation.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic invocation intent but leaves important context unspecified: the meaning of id, exact timeout semantics, return shape beyond 'final status', and how it relates to sibling status-checking tools.

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 only 50%: the id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and timeout_sec is already described by the schema. The phrase 'or timeout' does not add meaning beyond the existing timeout_sec parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: blocking-wait for a task to finish or timeout, then returning final status. It implies a distinction from non-blocking status checks like download_status, but does not name or explicitly contrast that sibling.

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 states the operation but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as download_status or polling. The blocking nature implies a use case, but the description does not articulate when this tool should be chosen over siblings.

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