kie_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions 'polling' and 'returns the final state', but omits critical behaviors such as what happens on timeout, error handling, or whether it blocks the caller. There is no mention of the timeoutSec parameter's effect or potential exceptions. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded and contain zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function. It is appropriately sized for a simple polling tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'final state' means, how timeouts affect the return, and how to interpret the result. It does none of this. It also does not reference the task lifecycle or relationship to other kie_* tools. This is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and a non-obvious return value.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (taskId, pollSec, timeoutSec), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameters, but the schema already provides adequate meaning. No extra credit is warranted beyond the baseline.

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's function: to wait for a task to finish by polling and then return the final state. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kie_status by emphasizing the blocking/polling behavior.

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 a clear use case: when you need to block until a task completes. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using kie_status for a non-blocking status check) or exclusions. Thus it earns a 4 for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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