wait_for_vm_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits critical traits: polling interval, timeout failure behavior (throw vs. return), whether the call blocks the request, and what is returned on success or timeout. Only the basic wait-until semantics are stated.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but for a blocking tool with three parameters and no annotations it is under-specified rather than concise. It would benefit from one or two additional sentences covering timeout and return behavior.

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?

A wait/polling tool with an undocumented timeout parameter, no output schema, and no annotations is not adequately described by one generic sentence. The agent cannot know expected timing, failure modes, or what result to expect after the wait resolves.

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 only 33% — only 'vm' has a description. The description does not compensate: it never explains the 'states' array (valid values, whether partial matching applies), nor the 'timeoutMs' parameter (default 60s, max 600s, and what happens on expiry). 'One of the given states' adds only a small hint about OR 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Wait until a VM reaches one of the given states'), which is more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_vm_state (one-shot read), leaving the agent to infer that this is the blocking/polling variant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_vm_state or how it relates to other waiting siblings such as wait_for_command. No exclusions, preconditions, or notes about calling it when the VM is already in a terminal state are provided.

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