migration_awaitBatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds in explaining the polling mechanism, timeout behavior, and return structure (COMPLETED vs TIMEOUT with aggregated counts). Minor gap: doesn't clarify if this blocks the thread or how timeout is configured given zero input parameters.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core polling behavior; second sentence precisely documents return values. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema exists, the description appropriately documents return values and progress aggregation. Completeness is strong for a zero-parameter tool, though it could clarify batch selection criteria when parameters are absent.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline 4. The description pluralizes 'batch(es)' which hints at the scope (possibly all active batches), adequately compensating for the empty parameter list without inventing non-existent constraints.

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?

Excellent specificity with clear verb ('Poll'), resource ('migration batch(es)'), and termination conditions ('until all complete or timeout'). The plural 'batch(es)' and await semantics clearly distinguish this from sibling status-check tools like migration_getBatchStatus or migration_getBatchSummary.

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 implies usage context through 'await' and 'poll' verbs, suggesting this is for blocking/waiting scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus one-time status checks (migration_getBatchStatus) or how to handle the timeout result.

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