wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a long-poll with a 50s cap, and multiple calls may be required. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the blocking and retry nature.

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: it states the primary purpose, lists conditions, and gives the critical timeout/retry caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, conditions, timeout limit, and retry behavior. It does not explicitly describe the full return value shape beyond mentioning 'satisfied=false', and there is no output schema, but for a simple waiting tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds marginal value by interpreting 'file_stable' as 'render/download done' and referencing the timeout, but does not add significant new semantics.

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 it 'Long-poll until a condition is met (or timeout)' and lists specific conditions (process_ended, process_started, file_stable, file_exists, window_title_contains). The phrase 'Replaces polling loops' distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform immediate checks, giving specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: 'Replaces polling loops' and 'if satisfied=false, call again to keep waiting'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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