Wait for a delegated task

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

The description clearly discloses the key behavioral trait of blocking execution ('Block until...'), which is a critical piece of information not captured by any annotations (none provided). However, it could additionally mention what happens on timeout (e.g., error return vs. graceful handling), hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core blocking behavior, and every part adds value. There is zero waste 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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key semantics (blocking, timeout, preference for non-blocking approach). It could benefit from a brief note on return value or error behavior, but overall it is adequately complete for a simple blocking wait tool.

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 for the lack of parameter info. The description implies the task_id refers to a 'delegated Antigravity task' and hints at the timeout_seconds parameter via 'or until timeout'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definitions, but does not fully elaborate on each parameter's format or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Block') and resource ('delegated Antigravity task'), clearly distinguishing the tool's synchronous blocking behavior from its sibling ag_task_status. It also specifies the timeout condition, making the tool's 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('only wait when you genuinely cannot proceed without Antigravity's result') and recommends an alternative approach ('Prefer ag_task_status and doing your own work in between'). This provides clear guidance on when not to use it, which is crucial given the blocking nature.

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