Wait for File Transfer Result

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the wait ends on completion, cancellation, or failure after lease release, and completed transfers expose source_path, requested_path, resolved_path, renamed, and optional sha256. It does not discuss timeout behavior or event cursor advancement, keeping it below a 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 three compact sentences with no waste. The core waiting behavior is front-loaded, followed by useful result fields and the sibling routing instruction.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: what states end the wait, which fields matter for saved paths, and when to prefer this over terminal_wait.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces transfer_id and cursor usage but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: wait for one transfer_id after an event cursor for file-transfer outcomes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling terminal_wait, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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 gives a direct alternative: "Use this instead of terminal_wait for file-transfer outcomes." This is an explicit routing rule that names both the preferred use case and the competing tool.

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