Wait for a GPTProto task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it never resubmits and is capped at 600 seconds, both important for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

Two sentences, both information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral constraints. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case but leaves optional parameter semantics unexplained. It is minimally viable for a default task_id-only call, especially with annotations covering safety, but not fully complete for advanced usage.

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 only 17%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters such as interval_ms, output_json, video, or timeout_seconds. It only indirectly implies task_id through 'existing known task' and the time cap via '600 seconds'.

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 names a specific action ('Resume MCP-owned polling') and a specific target ('existing known task'), with a clear context ('after an interrupted creation call'). It also distinguishes itself from re-submission by stating 'It never resubmits', which separates it from creation/request 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 provides a clear trigger condition: use this after an interrupted creation call to resume polling for an existing task. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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