Wait for a game condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (repeated polling until truthy) and that the tool blocks a sequence, but says nothing about what happens on timeout, whether errors are thrown or falsy returned, or default polling/timeout values.

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 with the core mechanism front-loaded and the rationale trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical examples could be tightened.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and two of three parameters undocumented. For a blocking poll tool an agent needs to know the return value on success vs. timeout and the default/max wait, none of which the description supplies.

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 only 33%: only 'expression' is documented (and its 250ms polling note is in the schema, not the description). pollMs and timeoutMs are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not compensate with defaults, units, or bounds.

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 verb and resource: polling an expression in the running game until truthy. It is clearly distinct from live_eval (evaluate once) and assert_in_game by the polling-until-true semantics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'so a sequence (menu open, battle over, message finished) can be followed instead of guessed at' gives concrete usage scenarios, which is better than nothing. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., live_eval or assert_in_game) and states no when-not conditions, so routing is left to inference.

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