Renforge Wait Until

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the default output profile ('interaction') and when to request more data, which is useful. However, it omits key behaviors such as timeout semantics, polling interval, and what happens when the condition is never met, leaving significant gaps for a blocking tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then giving output-profile guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Yet for a timeout-driven wait tool, the absence of any timeout behavior explanation and the sparse coverage of several numeric tuning parameters leave the agent with incomplete operational context, despite the useful output-profile notes.

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. It clarifies that exactly one of expr, label, or screen should be used (mutual exclusivity) and explains include and state_profile beyond their schema names. Still, six parameters (timeout, interval, max_depth, max_items, max_output_bytes, project_path) receive no semantic elaboration.

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 clear verb ('Wait for') and the condition types it waits on ('one label, screen, or expression condition'). It distinguishes itself from siblings that produce state, advance, or poll events by specifying that it blocks until exactly one condition is met. However, it does not explicitly name competing tools like renforge_advance or renforge_poll_events.

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 implies the tool is used for waiting on a single condition, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as renforge_advance or renforge_poll_events. It offers parameter-level advice (state_profile, include) but no tool-selection guidance or exclusions.

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