Wait For Visual State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds crucial behavior beyond annotations: polling with a timeout, which is not inferred from the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core behavior and adds a motivational hint. Every word earns its place, and it is not padded with redundant information.

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 annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers the essential waiting behavior. It does not specify the return value or timeout error behavior, but this is a simple polling tool and the missing details are not critical for selection.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how default values interact or return behavior. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('poll') and resource ('target visual state ID'), with an explicit terminal condition ('exists in memory or timeout occurs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_memory or compare_states, which do different operations.

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 phrase 'avoiding spinning agent loops' gives clear context that this tool is intended to safely wait for a state to appear, instead of an agent manually polling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks full when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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