bgi_wait_milestone

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important non-obvious trait: this is a blocking call capped near 50 seconds, and a timeout means call again rather than failure. It does not say what the response body looks like on match versus timeout, which is the remaining behavioral 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?

One front-loaded sentence with a compact inline gloss list for the milestones, followed by a single practical note on the wait cap and retry. No filler, and the most important operational fact (50s cap, retry) lands last where it is easy to catch.

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 4-parameter, zero-required polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the milestone vocabulary, the blocking limit, and the retry loop — enough to invoke it correctly. What is missing is the return contract (does a timeout look like an empty result, an error, or the matched line?), which matters for an agent writing a retry loop.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by glossing the non-obvious enum values (capturer_ready as screenshotter ready, domain_entered as actually entering the instance, finished as overall wrap-up). It also restates the 50-second cap consistent with the schema, though it says nothing about the pattern-overrides-milestone interaction beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (wait for) and resource (a milestone log line), and enumerates the exact milestone vocabulary, which lets the agent match it to a known workflow stage. The parenthetical 'really running, not just launched' clarifies intent versus plain status reads, but no sibling tool (bgi_status, bgi_watch, bgi_run_task_progress) is named.

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?

Usage context is implied — call this to confirm a run has actually started versus merely been dispatched — and the description gives a concrete retry pattern on timeout. However, it never states when to prefer bgi_watch, bgi_log_search, or bgi_run_task_progress instead, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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