Wait for project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses that the call blocks, the timeout behavior, and the retry-on-timeout pattern. It adds the concrete return shape (status, stage, stageProgress, error, clips) without an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of auth or rate considerations, but the behavioral core is well covered.

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?

Front-loads the blocking behavior and termination conditions, then the return shape and alternative. Dense but every clause earns its place; the inline return object is compact rather than bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and the timeout/retry hint, and it covers the blocking semantics and alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both id and timeoutSeconds are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to timeoutSeconds in passing and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the structured field, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (block/wait) and resource (project), and gives the exact termination conditions: done, failed, or timeoutSeconds elapsed. It also names the sibling it is not (get_project) for non-blocking reads, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent: use get_project instead for a non-blocking look, and call this again if the timeout hint 'Still running' is returned. Both the when and the alternative are stated directly.

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