wait_for_artifacts

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

No annotations provided, but description covers polling interval (~10s), stages, timeout handling, and non-destructive nature. Good transparency for a poller.

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?

Concise, well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then behavioral details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. Lacks specifics about return format (e.g., structure of artifacts), but given no output schema, it's acceptable.

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 description adds value beyond schema: explains timeout returns current stage, and that 'all' is for calling get_agent_context or get_key_moments next.

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?

Clearly states the action: poll until transcript/summary/key moments finish processing, then return them. Distinguishes from sibling retrieval tools (get_transcript, etc.) by emphasizing the waiting aspect.

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?

Provides explicit context: use right after a recording is made, explains stages, and timeout behavior. Could be more explicit about when NOT to use (e.g., if recording is already processed), but overall clear.

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