wait_for_asset

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the compiled return shape, the asset_build_failed error with logs, that 'missing' is ambiguous (unseen vs failed) and is disambiguated after a grace period, and critically that a timeout returns {ready: false} rather than an error. It also notes the AiCompanion gem 0.6.0+ dependency, a real operational prerequisite.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. Some of the return-value prose is redundant since an output schema exists, making the block slightly longer than needed for a tool whose structured output already documents results.

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?

For a 5-parameter, mutation-free polling tool with an output schema and no annotations, everything an agent needs is present: purpose, all parameter meanings and bounds, timeout/cancellation semantics, ambiguous-status handling, and the gem dependency. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema gives no enums or descriptions, so the description must compensate entirely - and it does. The Args block explains path (source path preferred because the job check needs it), timeout bounds (default 120, max 3600), just_written's file-monitor flush purpose, source_path's role when path is a product path, and poll_interval's 0.1-10 range.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (wait), resource (one asset), and a secondary outcome (report why it failed). The singular 'one asset' implicitly separates it from the sibling wait_for_assets, and the description explicitly names the underlying get_asset_status/get_asset_jobs it wraps.

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 establishes clear context: this is the blocking/polling alternative to get_asset_status, used when you need to wait for a build rather than snapshot status, and it explains the grace-period fallback to get_asset_jobs. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it versus get_asset_status or wait_for_assets, leaving that inference to the agent.

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