Wait for Analysis

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

With no readOnly or destructive annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals that the call blocks, that backend thread becomes blocked while analysis runs, and that tool calls queue during that time. It also discloses the subtle 'at least one' multi-database return condition, which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 compact, well-organized with bold single/multi sections, and every sentence contributes useful information. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the concurrency warning is placed at the end without unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the schema, output schema, and the provided behavioral notes, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. The main gap is that neither parameter is required, but the description does not state what happens if both 'database' and 'databases' are omitted or how conflicts between them are resolved.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning beyond the schema by mapping each parameter to a specific usage scenario: 'database' for single and 'databases' for multi. It clarifies the intended interaction pattern but does not add new constraints or format details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Block' and clearly identifies the resource: database(s) finishing opening and optional auto-analysis. It distinguishes itself from siblings by defining wait behavior rather than open/save/close actions, and it explicitly covers single vs multi-database semantics.

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 gives clear instructions for the two invocation patterns: pass 'database' for one DB and pass 'databases' for multiple, returning when at least one is ready. It also advises the caller to work on the ready one and call again for the rest. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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