Wait for agent

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the default settled-status set (idle/done/blocked) and the immediate-return short-circuit when the agent already matches. It omits what happens on timeout or how the wait terminates, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence partially duplicates the schema's 'until' description, which is the only wasted effort.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally would say what a wait returns (final status? timeout signal?) and whether a timeout is an error or a normal result. For a blocking tool with a bounded timeout, that gap matters, though the annotations and full schema coverage keep this adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the agent identifier, the 'until' enum, and the timeout default/max. The description's note about omitting 'until' restates the schema's own 'Omit to wait for any settled status' text, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: waiting for an agent to reach a status, which cleanly separates it from read-style siblings like herdr_agent_get and herdr_agent_list. The distinction from those siblings is semantic rather than explicit, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 when to reach for this tool via its blocking nature, and explains the default behavior when 'until' is omitted. However, it never explicitly says to use this over herdr_agent_get for polling, nor states any preconditions (e.g., the agent must exist).

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