renforge_wait_until

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default state profile and cautions against full state, but it omits critical behavior such as timeout handling, error behavior on unmet conditions, and whether the operation is read-only. It offers partial transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds essential parameter guidance without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description only covers the core wait condition and return profile. It does not explain timeout semantics, polling interval meaning, depth/item limits, or the required project_path, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly in non-default scenarios.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 11 parameters. It explains the condition selectors (label, screen, expr), include, and state_profile, but leaves timeout, interval, max_depth, max_items, max_output_bytes, and project_path undocumented. This is inadequate for the parameter set.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Wait for exactly one label, screen, or expression condition.' This precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like poll_events or game_state by emphasizing the 'wait for condition' purpose and the 'exactly one' constraint.

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 gives guidance on parameter usage ('Pass include for extra fields/variables; use state_profile='full' only when the complete store is required') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like poll_events or game_state. The use case is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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