agy_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call blocks ('keep waiting') and that it is idempotent when idle ('returns the last result again if no turn is running') — a non-obvious trait. It says nothing about what happens when the wait expires (error, RUNNING, partial result), despite wait_seconds defaulting to 600, nor about concurrency or rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the blocking behavior and the idle-return behavior front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and the ordering puts the most important behavioral fact first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But this is a long-blocking tool with a timed default and no annotations, and the timeout semantics — the single thing most likely to surprise an agent — are absent from the description and unstated in the schema.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: neither session_id nor wait_seconds is mentioned. Worse, 'keep waiting' implies open-ended blocking while the schema exposes a 600-second default timeout, leaving the agent unable to tell whether wait_seconds is a deadline or a polling interval.

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 resource ('Keep waiting for a turn') and ties the starting state to the sibling tools that produce it ('a turn that agy_start/agy_say returned as RUNNING'), which is concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from agy_status, the obvious non-blocking sibling, leaving the blocking-vs-polling distinction to inference.

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 precondition for use is explicit: call this only after agy_start or agy_say reported RUNNING. That is a clear usage context. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so an agent that receives a RUNNING state and only wants a single check has no pointer to agy_status.

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