Wait for Assembly completion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool polls until completion or timeout, but does not reveal what happens on timeout (error vs. partial status), whether it requires one of assembly_id or assembly_url, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between assembly_id and assembly_url, how poll_interval_ms works, or what the return value indicates. The context provided is insufficient for safe and correct usage.

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 does not mention any of the four parameters (timeout_ms, assembly_id, assembly_url, poll_interval_ms). The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameters entirely unexplained.

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's function: 'Polls until the Assembly completes or timeout is reached.' It uses a specific verb ('polls') and resource ('Assembly'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_assembly_status, which is a one-time status check. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a use case (blocking until completion) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_assembly_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and relies on inference.

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