wait_for_generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the polling loop, the three termination states, and that it will not resubmit — but omits whether the call blocks, what is returned on failure vs timeout, and any rate/concurrency constraints.

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?

Two tightly-worded sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

For a 3-parameter polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the concept but leaves gaps: what the call returns on each terminal state and what interval_seconds/timeout_seconds actually govern are unaddressed.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'timeout'. The uuid, timeout_seconds, and interval_seconds semantics (and the polling interval in particular) are left entirely to the bare schema, which only shows types, defaults, and ranges.

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 verb (poll/wait) and resource (a generation) with the terminal conditions. It distinguishes itself from the generate_* siblings by clarifying it waits rather than creates, though it never names get_generation as the immediate-check alternative.

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?

'Does not resubmit the job' hints at how it differs from generate_* tools, and 'until it completes, fails, or the timeout is hit' implies the blocking use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_generation or list_generations.

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