await_generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the polling behavior, terminal state condition, timeout, and blocking nature. It does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., exception or status), but overall provides good transparency.

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 paragraph with a structured Args section. It is relatively concise but could be slightly more compact. It front-loads the purpose and then details parameters, which is good.

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?

The tool is simple but the description lacks detail on the return value (final status) - e.g., format or possible values. It does not explain error handling or timeout behavior. Given no output schema, this is a 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with explanations: job_id is required, provider defaults to 'meshy', timeout defaults to 600 seconds, poll_interval defaults to 10 seconds. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: to wait for a generation job to complete and return the final status. It uses specific verbs like 'Wait', 'polls', and 'block', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generation_status' by emphasizing synchronous blocking behavior.

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 context: 'Useful for agents that want to block until a model is ready.' It implies when to use this tool (synchronous waiting) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like polling via 'generation_status'.

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