Wait for instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context that the tool polls inside the client (not via MCP), which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 that front-loads the core action and the benefit. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description explains the core polling behavior but omits details about timeout behavior, return values, and parameter semantics. Given the absence of an output schema and moderate parameter count, the description could be more complete, though annotations cover safety aspects.

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 20% (clientId has a description), and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It implies that 'path' refers to an instance path and 'state' can be appears/disappears, but it does not explain pollMs, timeoutMs, or how clientId relates to the active client. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more.

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: polling until an instance path appears or disappears. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like wait_for_property (property-based) and query_instances (querying).

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 when to use this tool by mentioning 'avoiding repeated MCP calls', which signals it is for waiting on conditions efficiently rather than manual polling. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it lacks full guidance.

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