yougpu_wait_ready

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: polling continues until ACTIVE/INSTALLING with IP or ERROR, and there is a default timeout of 10 minutes. However, it does not mention what happens on timeout (error vs. return), nor does it specify if the operation is read-only, which would be useful but not critical.

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 that conveys the core behavior and default timeout without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return values and edge cases. It mentions 'with IP' but does not detail the full return structure or what occurs on timeout. For a simple polling tool, it provides the essential behavior, but gaps remain in error handling and return format.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'Default timeout 10 minutes' without naming timeout_ms or explaining its range. It does not describe poll_interval_ms at all, and instance_id is only implied by 'Poll instance'. This leaves parameter semantics largely 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 uses the specific verb 'poll' with the resource 'instance' and clearly states the intended outcome: wait until ACTIVE/INSTALLING with IP or ERROR. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_instance (single fetch) and list_instances (listing), so purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage after instance creation ('Poll instance until...') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_instance. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicitly inferred.

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