wait_generation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: long-poll mechanism, statuses to poll for, and return content (output URLs, inline preview). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 polling tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and expected results. It lacks explicit mention of intermediate status fields or error handling, but overall it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions wait_seconds and implicitly include_preview via 'inline image preview', but request_id is not explained. It lacks explicit details on defaults and constraints, so it is adequate but not thorough.

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 it waits for a generation to finish using long-polling, and explicitly says to call repeatedly until COMPLETED, FAILED, or CANCELED. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_generation which likely just returns current status without blocking.

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 provides clear usage guidance: call repeatedly until termination statuses. It implies when to use this tool (blocking wait) vs alternatives (simple status check), but does not explicitly exclude other use cases.

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