Wait for Assembly completion

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

The description discloses polling behavior with a timeout, but does not specify what happens on timeout (e.g., error or return), retry logic, or whether the tool is safe (read-only). With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is only partially transparent.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core action and condition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain return values or behavior for each parameter. With 4 undocumented parameters and no details on polling mechanism, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any of the 4 parameters (assembly_url, assembly_id, timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms). The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 tool polls for assembly completion, specifying the action (polls) and resource (Assembly). It distinguishes from sibling transloadit_get_assembly_status which likely returns a single status, but does not explicitly contrast 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transloadit_get_assembly_status. The description implies use after creating an assembly but lacks exclusions or contexts where polling is inappropriate.

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