wait_and_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the wait bound (up to 120 seconds) and that a repair takes roughly a minute, which is useful. But it never states whether the call blocks, whether it returns the health result or just a sleep acknowledgment, or what happens on failure, leaving the most important behavioral question unanswered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the duration bound and the reason for waiting are delivered immediately. The parenthetical is efficient, though the compressed phrasing contributes to the read ambiguity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description needs to fully specify behavior. It omits what the tool returns and whether a separate check_health call is required, which is exactly the information an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Only one parameter, the 'seconds' field, has 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by supplying the 0–120 range, which is not documented in the schema. But it does not explain what happens above 120, negative values, or how the default of 60 interacts with the repair timing.

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 verb+resource (wait, then check health) is identifiable, but it is unclear whether the tool itself performs the health check and returns results, or merely sleeps and instructs the agent to call check_health separately. That ambiguity sits at the core of the tool's purpose, so it falls short of a 4.

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 by the parenthetical about repair taking a minute, so an agent can infer this follows a repair. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor any named alternative (the siblings include check_health and repair, which are clearly relevant).

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