doubao_desktop_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuinely useful caveat (a completed reply still needs independent artifact review), but omits the core blocking semantics an agent needs: whether the call blocks, what happens on timeout, and how the timeoutSeconds limit behaves.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the caveat follows. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a result caveat rather than core invocation guidance.

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 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for a long-polling wait tool. An agent cannot tell what a return value means on timeout versus completion, nor how to size the timeout, from this text alone.

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% across 3 parameters. The description mentions no parameter at all, leaving runId, conversationId, and especially the timeoutSeconds bound (1-55, default 20) entirely undocumented and uncontextualized for a blocking call.

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: waiting on an already submitted desktop run. It distinguishes itself somewhat by implying the run must pre-exist (unlike doubao_desktop_create_task), but never names the sibling it competes with, notably doubao_desktop_status, which also reports on runs.

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?

'Already submitted' implies the precondition that a run must exist first, and the second sentence warns that completion is not final. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to wait versus poll with doubao_desktop_status or continue with doubao_desktop_continue_task.

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