wait_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: a 55-second timeout and the terminal/approval state criterion. It does not, however, explain what happens on timeout (e.g., whether it returns partial statuses or throws an error), which would be a small additional gap.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the key verb and resource, then specifies the constraint and target state efficiently.

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?

The core behavior is clearly stated, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Yet, with no output schema and no mention of return values or timeout error semantics, the agent may not know what to expect after the call. For a simple wait tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description indirectly clarifies task_ids as the tasks to wait for and timeout_seconds as the maximum wait (matching the schema's 55 maximum). However, it does not explain the default timeout behavior when timeout_seconds is omitted, leaving a semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') with a clear resource ('tasks') and an explicit target state ('terminal or approval state'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task or list_tasks, which fetch current status rather than block until a condition is met.

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 usage context is implied: one would call this after delegating tasks when they need to block until tasks complete or require approval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_task or list_tasks, nor does it state when not to use it.

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