wait_for_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains polling until completion or timeout, includes timeout cap at 3600s, and describes the return dict. It does not detail error behavior or side effects, but the output schema covers return states. Transparency is high.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 output schema explains return values, the description covers all needed aspects: parameters, behavior, and usage example. It is complete for a polling utility tool with clear constraints.

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 task_id, timeout (with default 300 and cap 3600), and poll_interval (default 5) clearly. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 'Wait for a task to complete' with a polling mechanism. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other operations like install, execute, or get. The specific verb 'wait' and resource 'task' make purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Useful for waiting on installation or provisioning operations,' providing clear context. It suggests when to use this tool, though it could explicitly mention that it should be used after starting an async operation. Still, it gives good guidance.

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