portainer_service_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the polling behavior, the three stop conditions, the return summary fields (converged, reason, timed_out, recent task errors), and the timeout clamping. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a wait operation and the description covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists args with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the purpose, parameters, behavior, and return information (the output schema presumably defines the return structure). No critical information is missing, such as prerequisites or error handling, given the simple nature of a wait operation.

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 fully compensate. It does so excellently: service_id is explained as 'Service ID or name', timeout_seconds is described with default and clamping range, and endpoint_id is clarified as 'Target endpoint ID (uses default if omitted)'. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

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: waiting for a service rollout to converge after an update/rollback. It specifies the verb ('wait'), the resource ('service rollout'), and the context ('after an update/rollback'). It also details the termination conditions, distinguishing it from inspection or task-listing tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying 'after an update/rollback', which clearly ties it to portainer_service_update and portainer_service_rollback. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., portainer_stack_wait for stacks) or state when NOT to use it, so it misses the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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