wait_for_spatial_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond those by specifying the blocking/waiting behavior and the distinct state conditions (exists, active, confidence_above, in_region), which are not inferable from the annotations alone.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The operative verb and resource come first, followed by a compact parenthetical enumeration of supported conditions. Every word 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?

Given the fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose and wait semantics well. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state timeout/failure behavior, but the timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms parameters largely fill that context.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters, including the enum for condition and defaults for threshold, timeout, and poll interval. The description restates condition categories but adds little per-parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

States a specific action ('Poll and wait') on a specific resource ('entity reaching spatial state') and enumerates the four condition types. This clearly differentiates it from one-shot sibling tools like query_entities or get_spatial_map.

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 'Poll and wait until' phrasing makes the blocking use case explicit: use this when the caller must wait for a condition to become true, rather than perform a one-shot read. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the polling semantics provide clear contextual guidance.

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