wait_for_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at blocking/waiting semantics via 'wait for ... terminal state', but never states that the call blocks, what happens when timeout_seconds elapses, whether it can fail or return a non-terminal result, or whether it is safe to retry.

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 short phrase that is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise; it is front-loaded but omits essentially all operational detail an agent would need.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the definition leaves the agent without the blocking behavior, timeout semantics, or return shape. For a wait/polling tool that shares a namespace with get_command_status, this is a significant gap.

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% for all three parameters. The description implies a request/command identifier and a waiting notion, which loosely maps to request_id and timeout_seconds, but it says nothing about robot_sn, ID formats, or the timeout's unit/default beyond the schema's own default of 60.

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 bilingual phrase 'Wait for command delivery terminal state' names a verb (wait) and a resource (command delivery), so the core purpose is inferable. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_command_status, nor does it explain what a 'terminal state' delivery means, leaving the agent to guess the relationship between the two.

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 call this blocking wait versus the sibling get_command_status (a polling alternative), nor any prerequisite such as needing a request_id obtained from a prior command submission. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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