hermes_task_wait

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

The description discloses the operational mechanism (active stream, A2A subscribe, polling fallback), which adds value beyond the annotations. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description's detail about stream/subscribe/polling provides useful context about how the wait is implemented without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Wait for task progress/result') before detailing the fallback mechanism. No redundant words or filler; every phrase 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?

The description covers the primary purpose and mechanism but omits explicit usage scenarios versus alternatives, timeout behavior (e.g., what happens on timeout), and error handling. While the output schema and annotations provide some coverage, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use this tool in a broader workflow.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (task_id with 'bridge_task_id or known A2A task id' and timeout with 'Maximum wait in seconds'), so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 starts with 'Wait for task progress/result', which clearly states the action (wait) and resource (task). It differentiates from siblings like hermes_task_get (which likely fetches status without blocking) and hermes_task_cancel (which cancels). The mechanism detail further clarifies intent, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for blocking until a task progresses or completes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over hermes_task_get or hermes_status. No alternatives are named and no 'when not to use' guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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