Wait for something to happen

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the ~10Hz polling rate, blocking semantics, that it returns bearings, and that it can time out. It stops short of stating the timeout default/max or what a timeout return looks like structurally.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the return semantics. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information, including the polling rate and the two possible outcomes.

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 output schema, the description usefully covers return values (what happened with bearings, or a timeout). The main gap is that it doesn't explain how the event choice interacts with label/target (e.g. that 'seen'/'gone'/'close' need a target or label), which is a 4-param tool with a required event.

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 75%, with the event enum and timeout_s well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and 'target' has an enum but no schema description and is not clarified here. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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?

It names a specific behavior — watch the robot ~10x/second and return when an event fires — which is a concrete verb-plus-resource, not a tautology. It implicitly separates itself from polling siblings ('instead of checking over and over') but never names look/detect_objects/robot_status, so the differentiation is only suggestive.

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 phrase 'instead of checking over and over' implies this is the blocking alternative to repeated polling, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states explicit when-to-use conditions, when-not to use it, or which sibling to prefer in a given situation.

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