orgo_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully describe the tool's safety profile. The description adds context about typical use cases but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-line summary, followed by usage examples, then parameter details, and finally return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has few parameters, good annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the return value as a confirmation string. It is complete for a simple waiting tool, though it could mention potential error conditions or timeout behavior for a perfect score.

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 description restates the parameters and their types (computer_id, seconds) with default and range, which mirrors the input schema. Given that schema description coverage is 0% (the schema itself includes descriptions for parameters), the tool description adds minimal new meaning. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Wait for a specified duration.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and is unambiguous. Among sibling tools, waiting is a unique action, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Useful for waiting for pages to load, animations to complete, or applications to start.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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