wait_for_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (polling and returning the image) but does not mention timeout behavior, failure handling, or return format. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose, condition, and output. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 polling tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the essential context (what it does, when triggered, what it returns). It lacks explicit error/timeout behavior, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 100% with descriptions for both prompt_id (from queue_workflow result) and timeout_sec (default 120). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Poll ComfyUI'), the condition ('until the given prompt_id finishes'), and the result ('return the generated image'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_progress (which reports status) and view_image (which displays images).

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 usage after queue_workflow via the prompt_id schema hint, and the polling behavior makes the use case clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_progress) or mention any exclusions/preconditions.

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