wait_for_task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the polling mechanism and timeout behavior, which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations or omit critical behavior for this tool type.

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 concise sentence that delivers essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and expected outcome.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed) and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains polling and timeout, which are the key aspects for an agent to decide usage. Minor gap: no mention of error handling on timeout.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'task' and 'times out' relating to task_uuid and timeout_seconds, but provides no additional context (e.g., format, source, or that timeout_seconds is optional with a default of 60). This is insufficient for an agent to use the parameters effectively.

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 polls until a task reaches a terminal state or times out. It uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_task' (one-time status) and 'list_tasks' (list all). However, it could more explicitly define 'terminal state' for clarity.

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 usage for waiting on task completion but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_task'). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and schema.

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