vibekit_wait_for_task

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

The description discloses a key behavior: polling every 5 seconds. However, it does not explain what happens on timeout, whether it returns the task result or just a status, or if it throws an error. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it provides only partial behavioral detail.

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, focused sentence that clearly states the action and the polling interval. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns or how it handles timeouts. For a wait operation, the absence of return-value information is a significant gap, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome of a successful or timed-out wait.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (taskId and timeoutSeconds) with clear descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: to wait for a task to complete, with a specific polling interval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task or list_tasks, which are about retrieving task information rather than blocking for completion.

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 the tool is used when you need to wait for a task, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, such as checking status with get_task. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, so it's only implicitly clear.

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