Wait For Cocos Editor Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses polling and timeout behavior, but lacks details about side effects (e.g., blocking, errors on timeout), whether it modifies state, or what 'responds' means. Behavior is partially transparent.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is very concise, though additional details about parameters or return behavior would improve it without significantly increasing length.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the bridge context, what 'responds' means, or what the tool returns. Completeness is low.

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%. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as the meaning of 'port', 'timeoutMs', or 'intervalMs'. The schema provides constraints but no descriptions, making it hard for an agent to correctly use the parameters.

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 action ('poll'), the resource ('localhost Codex editor bridge'), and the termination condition ('until it responds or a timeout is reached'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_editor_bridge' which likely checks once.

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 implies usage when the bridge availability is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'check' or 'call'), nor provides when-not scenarios or prerequisites.

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