analysis.update_and_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'wait for completion' without explaining side effects, error conditions, or whether the tool blocks indefinitely. Crucially, it does not clarify what happens if the analysis is already running or if the session is invalid.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential details, making it under-specified. It could be restructured to include key usage hints without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide thorough context. It fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., status object, nothing), how it behaves on error, and what prerequisites are needed (e.g., session must have an active analysis update). The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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%, and the description provides zero information about the sole required parameter 'session_id'. The agent is left guessing about its purpose, format, or where to obtain it. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 action: run an analysis update and wait for completion. It conveys the core function of blocking until the update finishes, distinguishing it from sibling 'analysis.update' which likely just initiates. However, it does not elaborate on what 'wait' means in terms of return behavior or potential timeouts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like 'analysis.update', 'analysis.status', and 'analysis.abort' exist but the description provides no comparative context, such as 'use this if you need to block until the update finishes, otherwise use analysis.update to start it asynchronously'.

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