wait_for_cdn_freshness

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: polls until expected SHA or timeout, only for mutable URLs, single vantage point (us-east-1), and on timeout returns isError=true for fallback branching. Since no annotations are provided, this carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It is detailed but every sentence earns its place. Slight verbosity prevents a 5, but it remains efficient.

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?

For a polling tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and fallback. It mentions return on timeout but not on success; still adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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% but the description adds context beyond the schema, e.g., 'sha256' is 'from a preceding upload' and timeout_ms default. This adds semantic value, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 polls the CDN until a mutable blob URL serves the expected SHA-256 or timeout. It explicitly distinguishes mutable from immutable URLs, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

It specifies when to use the tool: after re-upload to an existing mutable key when end-user visibility is required. It also contrasts with immutable URLs where no waiting is needed, and suggests a fallback to immutableUrl on timeout.

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