Wait for property

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the 'client-side' execution context and the serialized expected value detail, but does not disclose timeout behavior or polling implications, which are relevant for a waiting 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?

A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it's so brief that it sacrifices clarity, which is less a conciseness issue and more a completeness issue.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and a potentially ambiguous 'serialized' concept, the description is too sparse. Critical details like what happens when timeout is reached, how to construct the path, and what the return value is are missing. A wait tool needs these details to be used 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only clientId has a description), so the description needed to compensate but doesn't. 'Serialized expected value' hints at expected, but not how path, property, pollMs, or timeoutMs should be used, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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 identifies the tool's action (wait client-side), the target (a property), and the condition (equals a serialized expected value). It distinguishes from sibling wait_for_instance by focusing on property rather than instance, and 'client-side' adds scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives; no mention of when not to use or related tools. The 'client-side' qualifier provides some context, but the agent gets no decision support for choosing between this and other tools like wait_for_instance or inspect_instance.

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