wait_for_activity

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which are consistent with polling behavior. The description adds that it polls until finish or timeout and reports final status, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, each adding value: the first defines purpose and behavior, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded key information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers core purpose and usage. However, parameter descriptions are missing, and timeout behavior details are absent, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 explain parameters. However, it does not mention activity_id or timeout_seconds explicitly. The example 'activity (e.g. a reboot or patch job)' hints at activity_id, but no details on parameter types, defaults, or constraints.

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 clearly states it polls an activity until completion or timeout and reports final status. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_activity (one-shot status) and list_activities (listing).

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 says 'Use after a write action to confirm success,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the intended use case is well-defined.

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