wait_for_takeover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses return states (done, cancelled, expired, incomplete, waiting), what each means for the agent's next action, and that wait_seconds defaults to request_takeover's value. It does not mention potential blocking behavior, rate limits, or invalid-id handling, leaving some operational context unstated.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then covers return values and parameters in a logical order. It is slightly repetitive by restating that results are the same as request_takeover, but every sentence adds useful guidance for invoking or interpreting the tool.

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 low complexity (two parameters, polling follow-up) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the relationship to request_takeover, the possible outcomes, and both parameters. Minor gaps remain around the wait_seconds default and edge cases like invalid ids.

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 compensate. It documents both parameters: takeover_id is the id from request_takeover (e.g., 'tk_...'), and wait_seconds is how long to wait this time. However, wait_seconds says only 'default as request_takeover' without specifying the default value or units, so the explanation is partial.

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 ('keep waiting') and resource ('takeover') and explicitly ties it to the result of 'request_takeover' returning 'waiting'. This differentiates it from the sibling request_takeover and other tools by clarifying it is a follow-up polling call.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after request_takeover returns 'waiting'. It also provides outcome-based guidance (e.g., stop on cancelled/expired, continue on done). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit request_takeover relationship.

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