wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the timing semantics (frames-to-seconds) but does not say whether the call blocks in real time, whether there is an upper bound on frames, or whether the game state advances deterministically — relevant for a tool whose whole effect is time passing.

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?

A single tight sentence: the action first, the unit conversion second, the use cases last. No filler, nothing to trim.

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-optional-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, units, and typical use. The only real gap is the blocking/limit behavior a timing tool ideally documents.

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 coverage is 0% — the 'frames' property has only a title and default, no description — so the description must compensate, and it does by defining the unit ('N frames, 60 = 1 second'). It does not restate the default of 60, which the schema already carries.

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 action — letting the game run for N frames — with the concrete conversion 60 frames = 1 second, which disambiguates the unit an agent would otherwise guess. It is clearly distinct from the other game-control siblings, though it never names them.

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 clause 'for dialogs, animations, evolutions' gives concrete scenarios that call for a wait rather than a button press or screenshot, so the agent has a clear trigger condition. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., don't wait when you need to act on input, and no alternative tool is named).

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