runtime_smoke_wait_for_result

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with a waiting/observing tool, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not explain the polling mechanism, timeout behavior, or what 'compact evidence' entails, leaving important behavior undocumented.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. While concise, it omits critical details about usage, parameters, and return value, making it under-specified.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot infer the return format, behavior, or parameter meanings, which is insufficient for reliable tool use.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. Key parameters like run_id, timeout_ms, and agent_mode remain completely opaque, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names or external knowledge.

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 (wait) and the resource (durable runtime smoke run). However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like runtime_smoke_get_result or runtime_smoke_tail_events, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes many smoke test tools, and the description lacks any hints about selection criteria or conditions for use.

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