wait_for_deploy

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the call blocks, how long it may block, what the return payload contains, which statuses are terminal, and what happens on timeout. It also tells the agent it can retry with the same sim_id, which is important behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: core blocking behavior first, then return shape, then timeout behavior and retry guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides the return shape, terminal statuses, timeout behavior, and a retry strategy. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains `timeout_s` with default and max values and its effect on blocking behavior, and it clarifies `sim_id` as the identifier of the sim whose deploy is being waited on, including reuse on retry.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Block until') and names the exact resource and condition: a sim's deploy reaching `active` or `failed`. This unambiguously distinguishes it from deployment-creation and serving siblings like `deploy_mock_from_spec` and `serve_locally`.

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 makes the operational context clear: call it to wait for a deploy to finish, and call it again on timeout. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative polling strategies, but the blocking behavior and retry guidance provide solid usage direction.

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