strategy_wait

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

With readOnlyHint and other annotations present, the description usefully adds that unchanged stable metrics alone fail freshness checks. It still does not explain what the wait returns, how timeout or probe behavior works, or what constitutes report-change evidence.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. Its density comes at the cost of clarity, since the key phrases are jargon rather than actionable structure.

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?

This is a complex wait tool with 10 parameters, nested expected_inputs, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The one-sentence description does not provide enough context about matching, freshness, timeout behavior, or return semantics for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

The schema has 10 parameters with only 20% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Required fields like entity_id and probe_id, as well as expected_inputs, expected_symbol, require_fresh, and timeout_ms, are left unexplained.

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 names a wait operation tied to strategy/context and report-change evidence, so the general idea is discernible. However, terms like 'exact strategy/context' and 'freshness checks' are undefined, and the description does not clearly distinguish this wait tool from siblings such as strategy_status or strategy_get_report.

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?

It implies the tool should be used when explicit report-change evidence is required and unchanged stable metrics are insufficient. It gives no explicit when-to-use comparison against alternatives like strategy_status, strategy_get_report, or stream_poll.

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