study_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses blocking behavior and optional timeout, but lacks details on side effects, timeout expiry behavior, or safety when no operation is in progress.

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 one sentence plus args/returns, front-loaded and concise. However, a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter. Missing info on return format, error behavior, and blocking duration limits, but is mostly adequate.

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 0%, but the description explains the only parameter timeout: 'Maximum time to wait in seconds (None for indefinite).' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type/null/default.

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 'Wait for the current solving operation to complete.' It uses a specific verb (wait) and resource (current solving operation), and distinguishes from related tools like study_solve_async and study_get_progress.

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 usage after starting an async solve, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like study_get_progress or how to handle multiple calls. No when-not guidance is provided.

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