wait_for_variant_analysis

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses polling behavior, timeout clamping, and return value details (wait_status entry). It is transparent about what happens on deadline hit.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, return, and argument details. It is slightly verbose but efficiently uses sentences without 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?

For a polling tool with no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (same as get_variant plus wait_status), all parameters, and usage context. It is fully self-contained and complete.

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 explains each parameter thoroughly: variant_id format, timeout_seconds and poll_interval_seconds with clamping ranges and defaults, adding significant meaning.

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 starts with 'Poll EVEE's on-demand interpretation until it completes or times out', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_variant by indicating its polling nature.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when `get_variant` reports `interpretation.status` as queued or processing', including an alternative scenario. Also notes that if timeout occurs, call again, providing clear guidance.

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