wait_for_task

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

Annotations only cover read-only/non-destructive safety, but the description adds the blocking/long-poll behavior, the early-return conditions (terminal states, failures, decisions requiring user input), and required post-call protocol for action_required and meeting_mode_notice. That is substantial behavioral context beyond what the structured fields declare.

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 purpose and the get_task_status alternative are front-loaded, and every block carries operational meaning. Minor waste from overlapping instructions about not ending the turn (timed_out/must_continue_in_this_turn vs. action_required) and from ragged indentation that makes the text look longer than it is.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary; the description instead names the specific result fields that drive downstream behavior (action_required, meeting_mode_notice, timed_out). For a blocking poll tool this is complete enough to invoke and act on correctly.

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 100% and the schema itself explains omitting task_id to use the current workstream task and the timeout range. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("wait for background Agent work to settle") and immediately frames the mechanism as a "Read-only long poll." It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_task_status for an instant snapshot, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use alternative ("Use get_task_status for an instant snapshot instead") and a concrete when-not-to-stop rule: if timed_out or must_continue_in_this_turn is true, do not end the turn. It also states which outcomes cause an early return, so the agent knows what conditions end the wait.

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