wait_for_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it polls, defines terminal vs non-terminal states, specifies default timeouts and poll intervals, and details return values including _meta fields. No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured with a summary, state definitions, argument list, and return value specification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, striking an ideal balance between detail and brevity.

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's complexity (polling, multiple states, timeout), no output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is fully complete. It covers behavior, parameters, returns, and edge cases, enabling correct agent invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive explanations for all 5 parameters: task_id, owner, repo, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds. It clarifies purpose, defaults, and relationships beyond the schema's bare types.

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 purpose: 'Poll a task until it reaches a terminal state, or timeout.' It lists terminal and non-terminal states, distinguishing it from siblings like get_task (single check) and create_task (creation).

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_task or when not to use it. It implies usage by describing its polling behavior, but lacks direct guidance or exclusions.

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