automation_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses the blocking semantics implied by 'Sleep' and the 0.01–60 second range that the schema does not encode, but it omits what happens on out-of-range values (clamp, error, or silent acceptance) and does not say whether the call blocks the workflow. No return-value detail is needed because an output schema exists.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core behavior plus range is front-loaded. Slight density loss from the parenthetical bounds being the only structural element, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter delay utility with an output schema, the definition covers what it does, valid input bounds, and typical use. The only meaningful gap is out-of-range behavior for the seconds value, which an agent could plausibly hit.

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 schema documents only the name and a default of 1. The description compensates by supplying the accepted range (0.01–60), which is the single most important constraint for this parameter and is absent from the schema.

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 ('Sleep') plus the unit and hard bounds ('N seconds (0.01–60)'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but no sibling in the list overlaps with a pure delay operation, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Useful for polling and retries' gives concrete use contexts, which is enough to select it over automation_http_request or system_now. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what alternative to choose instead of waiting (e.g., an explicit retry helper).

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