wait_for_task

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that — progress notifications are emitted, outputs are written to the output directory, and a timeout yields done=false rather than an error. This last point is genuinely useful and consistent with idempotentHint=true. Failure behavior (what happens if the task errors) is not covered.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action (wait, then save outputs) leading and the timeout/retry contract second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the blocking/waiting loop and output-saving semantics that the schema alone would not convey. Only the failure path of the awaited task is left unspecified, a minor gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including download's default and timeout_seconds' default of 120 and max of 900. The description restates the timeout/re-call semantics and implies download's effect but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (wait) plus the resource (Tripo task) and adds the side effect (saving outputs). It implicitly separates itself from polling siblings like get_task, but it never names the alternative that overlaps most, download_task, which also writes outputs. An agent can infer the difference, but it isn't stated.

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?

It clearly states the timeout contract and the follow-up action: 'Returns with done=false if timeout_seconds passes first; call again to keep waiting.' This tells the agent how to operate the tool in a loop. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_task or download_task, so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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