wait_for_spatial_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: it blocks/polls, states the default timeout and poll cadence, and gives the timeout failure shape ({ok:false, timeout:true}). However it states poll_interval default 500ms while the schema says 250ms, an internal inconsistency that weakens trust in the disclosed defaults.

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-loaded with the core verb and condition list, then behavior, then the routing rule to query_entities; every sentence carries information. It loses a point for spending a sentence on defaults already in the schema, one of which contradicts them.

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 helpfully supplies the return shape and the timeout payload, and covers defaults and blocking behavior for a 7-parameter tool. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of maximum timeout, cancellation, or what happens to concurrent polls.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of timeout/interval defaults adds no new meaning and even conflicts with the schema's poll_interval default, while the enum values it paraphrases are already self-describing.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('poll and wait until an entity reaches a specific spatial condition') and enumerates the four condition kinds, so the agent knows exactly what is being awaited. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling query_entities, so the tool is separable without opening a schema.

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 final sentence gives an explicit alternative and the selecting condition: use this instead of query_entities when polling asynchronously for a state transition or region entry. Both when-to-use and which-sibling-not-to-use are stated.

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