gemini_wait_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is a bounded wait, makes no provider requests or retries, and can stream MCP progress notifications while waiting. It does not state what the wait returns on timeout or completion, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense and front-loaded: the observation scope comes first, then the incremental-event recipe, then the mode split, then the wait guarantees. It is appropriately sized for its complexity, though the second sentence is slightly overloaded.

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 an async wait tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers modes, revision-based pagination, and wait guarantees, but leaves out targets and timeout semantics as well as any sense of the returned structure beyond 'messages and results'. It is adequate but incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: it explains after_revision, compact=true, and the two until modes. It does not explain targets or timeout_ms, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and scope: observing agent execution, tool activity, timing, messages and results. This is clear enough to distinguish it from spawn/write/cancel siblings, but it never names an explicit alternative (e.g. gemini_agent_status) to sharpen the boundary.

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 guidance is strong within the tool: until=update vs until=attention is explained, and after_revision+compact is described for incremental events. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than gemini_agent_status or gemini_list_agents, which is the main sibling-selection gap.

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