omv_wait_for_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool polls until the background task finishes, which communicates the blocking/asynchronous nature of the operation. It does not detail failure/timeout outcomes, but the core behavior is clearly and honestly described.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, and the second provides necessary context. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 simple polling tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the workflow, the trigger condition, and the polling behavior. It omits explicit return-value details, but 'collect the output' adequately conveys the tool's function given the simple context.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both 'filename' and 'max_seconds'. The tool description adds minimal new semantic value beyond referencing omv_call's result, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: collecting output from an asynchronous background task started by omv_call. It uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('output of a background task'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like omv_call by explicitly connecting the workflow.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when omv_call returns a filename indicating an async job. It names the prerequisite condition and the polling behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases like when a task has already finished.

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