scanner_wait_for_scan

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world nature, and the description adds real behavior: bounded polling interval, bounded timeout, and client progress reporting. It does not state what happens when no tasks are running at call time (immediate return?) or whether the timeout is a hard error, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior and the sequencing hint, then constraints, then return shape. Nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields {done, timed_out, elapsed_s, last} and explaining that `last` is the final task snapshot. For a two-parameter wait tool this is sufficient to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and carries only defaults and titles, so the description supplies the missing semantics: valid ranges of 0.5-30 for poll_s and 1-7200 for timeout_s. It does not describe unit rounding or what happens if poll_s exceeds timeout_s, but the core meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 blocking verb ('wait') on a specific resource state ('until no task is running'), and ties it to the launch tool, which cleanly separates it from sibling reads like scanner_status or scanner_tasks. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'use after scanner_launch_scan', which gives a clear sequencing rule. It does not contrast with scanner_tasks/scanner_status or state when-not to use it (e.g., if you just want a one-shot snapshot), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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