wait_until

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

The description discloses the blocking limit (1.5s), why that limit exists (main-thread frames), and the retry behavior. Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them. Missing: it doesn't clarify how timeout_ms relates to the stated 1.5s cap.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, blocking constraint and rationale, retry behavior, then a compact condition list. It is dense but perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core contract well (wait, poll, block limit). It does not describe the success return value or the `timeout_ms` parameter, and it offers no cross-reference to sibling wait_for_node, which would help complete the picture for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It defines the required `condition` parameter clearly and includes a compact syntax. However, the optional `timeout_ms` parameter is never mentioned, leaving its meaning and relationship to the 1.5s limit undocumented.

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 action ('Wait for a condition') and enumerates the accepted condition values (play_started, play_stopped, game_connected, seconds:N, file_exist:res://path). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sister tool wait_for_node, but the condition list makes the scope reasonably concrete.

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 practical guidance: blocks at most ~1.5s, if not met retrn 'not yet' and call again. It does not mention alternatives like wait_for_node or state when not to use this tool, but the context for repeated polling is clear.

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