wait_image_task

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

Annotations already cover safety (idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: bounded polling, that read-only retries count toward the wait budget, that timeout returns task_id/wait_timed_out while the cloud task continues, and that success writes to disk. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core concept ('有界轮询') before timeout and re-query behavior. No filler, though the multi-clause packing makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the main waiting/timeout behavior adequately, but for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage the undocumented polling parameters remain an incomplete picture.

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 only 25% (only output_dir is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. poll_interval and timeout_seconds have no descriptions anywhere, and the description only vaguely alludes to a 'wait time limit' and disk landing rather than mapping meaning onto those parameters.

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 states a specific operation — bounded polling of an image task ('有界轮询'), with the state transitions (NOT_START/IN_PROGRESS) that it waits on. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts against the obvious sibling get_image_task, so an agent must infer the difference itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: waiting continues while the task is queued or in progress, and '可稍后再次查询' hints at re-querying after a timeout. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs use-get_image_task guidance, leaving the choice between polling and single-query siblings to inference.

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