Long-poll a Clanker run

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

The description discloses many behavioral details beyond the annotations: quiet mode debouncing, what events trigger early wake (plan/status change, tool error, suspected stall, terminal state), and what trivial chatter does not. It also describes the return structure and digest contents. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint).

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 moderately concise; it is long but each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core functionality and then details behavior. The quiet mode explanation could be slightly tightened, but it is well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values. It does: 'Returns {status, digest, plan_summary, last_event_age_ms, suspected_stall}' and terminal fields. It also explains digest content and quiet mode. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is fully adequate.

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%, yet the description adds significant meaning: timeout_ms default and cap, quiet mode default and effect, and the id's origin ('from clanker_dispatch_start / clanker_dispatch'). This enhances the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Wait up to timeout_ms for new events or completion.' It uses specific verbs ('Wait', 'long-poll') and specifies the resource ('Clanker run'). The description distinguishes it from siblings by detailing the long-polling behavior and return data, which is not available in other tools like clanker_status.

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 usage guidelines by explaining when to use the tool (to wait for events/completion) and how the quiet mode affects behavior. It explicitly states that 'callers no longer need to repoll tightly' and contrasts quiet against the old any-event wake-up, offering clear context for use.

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