n8n_wait_for_execution

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses the polling nature and mentions return values ('final status and output'), but omits critical behavioral details: timeout failure modes, whether this holds a connection open, rate limiting concerns, or possible final status values.

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 appropriately brief with two efficient sentences. The main action is front-loaded. Minor deduction for the '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag which adds no semantic value for the AI agent.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the polling behavior but leaves all parameter semantics undocumented and fails to describe the output structure or error conditions (e.g., timeout expiration).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately. While 'Poll an execution' implies the purpose of `execution_id`, the `site` parameter (likely the n8n instance identifier) is completely undocumented. The timeout and polling interval parameters are implied by 'Poll' but not explicitly mapped.

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 core action ('Poll an execution') and the completion condition ('until it completes'). However, it fails to explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool `n8n_get_execution`, which likely retrieves execution status without blocking/waiting. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `n8n_get_execution` (immediate fetch) or `n8n_stop_execution`. The description implies use when waiting is needed, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' directives.

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