wait_for_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it works on the 'RUNNING game' and has a timeout, but it does not explain timeout behavior (e.g., error vs. return) or how path resolution works. The added context is modest but not unseen in annotations.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is separated clearly. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple blocking read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers core purpose and usage. It lacks details on timeout behavior and return value, but these are not critical for a synchronization primitive. It is adequately complete for guiding selection and basic invocation.

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 mentions 'path/name' for the path parameter and 'timeout' for timeout_ms, but does not explain the format of path (e.g., absolute scene path vs. name) or the unit/default for timeout_ms. This is insufficient for an agent to construct correct parameters.

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 tool blocks until a node appears in the running game or times out. This specific verb ('Block') plus resource ('node') and outcome ('appears... or timeout') distinguishes it from siblings like wait_until, which is likely a generic wait.

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 explicitly says 'Use after play_scene to sync before driving', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the stated use case is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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