wait_for_node

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool polls and that it has a timeout, which is useful. But it does not state what happens on timeout (e.g., returns null, throws error), whether it blocks the main thread, or what 'node exists' means exactly. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about failure behavior.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, condition, and timeout. No filler or redundant wording. It earns its place completely.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description has little to leverage. It covers the core mechanics (polling, timeout) but omits return conventions, error handling, and poll_frames semantics. For a blocking operation, these are significant gaps that prevent fully confident invocation, though the tool is conceptually simple enough to remain usable.

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 explains that timeout is in seconds and node_path refers to a path, but it does not explain poll_frames at all, nor does it describe the expected format of node_path or the relationship between timeout and poll_frames. This leaves one parameter semantically undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and clearly states the resource ('the running game') and the completion condition ('node exists at the given path or the timeout in seconds elapses'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools that perform direct game state mutations or queries.

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 clearly implies a wait-for-condition scenario in a running game, which gives the agent a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the 'exclusions' tier.

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