wait_for_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the blocking behavior and the timeout fallback, but it does not say what happens on timeout, whether failure is surfaced, or whether calling it with no pending work is safe.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the key timeout qualifier 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?

For a one-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, especially with an output schema present. The main gap is the missing timeout unit and behavior on timeout, which leaves minor but real ambiguity.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the timeout parameter. The integer default of 300 is ambiguous without units or semantics, so an agent cannot confidently know whether this is seconds or milliseconds.

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 and resource: 'Wait for the Asset Processor to finish processing'. This makes the core purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_asset_processor_status, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this after triggering asset processing and before relying on processed assets. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_asset_processor_status or refresh_assets.

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