wait_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the bounded nature (cap 120s), the possible return values, and the retry instruction. It is a read/poll operation and the side-effect-free nature is implied by 'poll' and 'returns', but it could be more explicit about not mutating state.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Bounded poll'), and every clause adds useful information—no filler. The return statuses and re-call guidance are packed efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it polls, the timeout cap, the possible return statuses, and the retry instruction. It misses precise parameter semantics but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%. The description mentions 'one download package' (mapping to package_id) and a 120s cap (relating to timeout_s), but it does not directly explain the timeout_s parameter, its units, or how it relates to the cap. It doesn't sufficiently compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Bounded poll of one download package' with a specific resource (download package) and a cap of 120s. It also lists the distinct return statuses, which differentiates it from sibling tools like status or list_downloads.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance by saying 're-call on still_running', indicating a polling loop with retry behavior. It implies its use for waiting on a package rather than a one-shot check, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'status' or say when not to use it.

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