Wait for a parameter study

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it waits at most timeout_s, returns a compact table with new_rows count, and should be re-called while the study is running. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only polling tool that is acceptable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core wait behavior in one sentence, followed by two concise sentences covering repetition and alternative selection. Every sentence earns its place and no words are wasted.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values in detail. It nevertheless clarifies the polling loop, timeout behavior, and sibling alternative. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (study, timeout_s) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates timeout_s semantics but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb (wait), resource (parameter study), scope (until another run finishes or study ends, at most timeout_s), and return value (compact table with new_rows). Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cm_wait_end by naming it.

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?

Provides explicit looping guidance ('Call it again while state is running') and names the alternative tool to use instead ('Use this for studies instead of cm_wait_end'). An agent knows both when to use this and which sibling it replaces.

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