whodb_platform_function_wait

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses that a timed-out wait does not cancel the underlying run, and that the call returns output, logs and error. It does not describe polling/backoff mechanics beyond the parameter defaults, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by invocation guidance and the workspace caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or annotation fields.

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 5-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers terminal states, return payload (output/logs/error), and timeout behavior, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around polling defaults and how errors/cancellations are surfaced, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: run_id provenance (start_run action or function_runs tool), the advice to keep timeout bounded, and the 'per-call targeting without changing defaults' semantics of the workspace object. That is more than the schema alone conveys.

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 precise verb and resource ('Wait for a persisted hosted function run') plus the exact terminal conditions (complete, fail, canceled) and what is returned (output, logs, error). This clearly separates it from sibling listing tools like whodb_platform_function_runs and from the analogous whodb_platform_transform_wait, which targets a different resource.

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 clear context for invocation: use the run id returned by the function start_run action, and keep the timeout bounded. It also warns that a run keeps going after a timed-out wait, which is the key operational caveat. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer function_runs (poll-free listing) instead, so no true exclusion guidance.

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