Sketch Wait

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful traits: the call is time-capped by `wait` seconds and each item reports one of three outcomes (file to play, still rendering, error). It does not say whether the call blocks the full duration, returns early when all are done, or how concurrency/timeout errors surface.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The '-> each sketch:' arrow notation is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need only light treatment, and the description gives a summary of the three outcome states. However, for a blocking-style wait tool with no annotations, the missing `project` semantics and early-return behavior leave genuine gaps.

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 explains `wait` as a seconds cap (the schema only gives a default of 180), but `project` — a required string parameter — is never mentioned, leaving its purpose and relation to the sketch queue undocumented.

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 ('Wait for the sketches still rendering in the background') and draws a contrast with the sibling sketch tool ('sketch returns the first as soon as it lands'). An agent can tell it apart from sketch, though the phrasing is compressed and requires knowing what 'sketch' means.

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 parenthetical about sketch returning the first result implies this tool is the follow-up when you want the rest, but it never says 'use this after sketch' or when to skip it. No exclusions, no guidance on choosing a wait duration, no statement about what happens if rendering is already complete.

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