apple_wait_for_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It communicates that the tool waits/resumes and can check specification matching, but omits polling/blocking behavior, timeout semantics, failure modes, permissions, and what is returned when the asset becomes ready or times out.

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 compact sentence and front-loads the core action. It contains no boilerplate or irrelevant text.

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 five-parameter wait/polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing essential operating details: timeout and polling behavior, what 'ready' means, result/status behavior, and how expectedSpecId mismatches are handled.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning to assetId and expectedSpecId via 'uploaded asset' and 'intended specification', but leaves mediaType and especially timeoutSeconds/pollIntervalSeconds unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resume waiting for an uploaded asset to become ready', with an optional spec-match check. It distinguishes assets from build uploads implicitly by naming 'asset', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as apple_wait_for_build_upload or apple_get_asset.

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?

Usage is implied: call this after an asset upload to wait for readiness, and optionally validate the expected specification. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives like apple_get_asset or apple_wait_for_build_upload.

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