arvan_wait_for_server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool polls and waits, and importantly discloses the 30-minute hard upper bound on waiting, which is critical behavior beyond annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds usage context and return format. Excellent 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?

With no output schema, the description should fully explain what 'latest server details' includes and what 'active' means. It hints at returns but lacks specificity. Given the tool's moderate complexity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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. However, it provides no details on the four parameters (server_id, region, timeout, interval) beyond mentioning timeout in a different context. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 polls a server until active, with the verb 'poll' and resource 'server'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arvan_create_server and arvan_get_server by noting it is a wait mechanism, and specifies the return of status flags.

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 explicitly says it's handy after arvan_create_server and before SSHing in, providing clear context. It also notes the timeout is bounded to 30 minutes, a key constraint. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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