wait_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a blocking wait, but does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether an exception is raised, how the form is matched, or whether the session_id affects the wait scope. The presence of a timeout parameter in the schema hints at behavior, but the description itself does not confirm or explain it.

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 short and front-loaded, but that brevity is due to under-specification rather than deliberate pruning. There are no wasted sentences, yet the description earns only partial credit because it omits nearly all operational detail.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and multiple sibling waiting tools, a single sentence is materially incomplete. The agent cannot tell how to identify the form, what timeout semantics are, what conditions indicate success, or what sort of error to expect. This definition is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters: title, timeout, form_name, and session_id. It does not indicate which parameters select the target form, what units timeout uses, or which parameters are optional. With this level of ambiguity, an agent cannot construct correct arguments without external knowledge.

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 states a specific action ('wait until') and a resource ('a form'), so the basic purpose is discernible. However, it does not clarify what identifies a form (title, form_name) or how it differs from neighboring wait tools like wait_window, wait_object, and wait_form_closed beyond the obvious direction of waiting for open rather than closed. The tool name and description are close to each other, with only slight added meaning.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool rather than wait_form_closed, wait_window, or wait_object. There are many similar siblings, so omitting this differentiation leaves the agent to guess. This is a 'no guidance' case, not a misleading one.

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