codebreaker_wait_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the timeout failure behavior and clarifies the return shape matches codebreaker_get_submission, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not detail error types or polling interval, but provides solid context for a polling 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. Every word contributes either purpose or a critical behavior, making it exceptionally 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 is simple, and the description covers purpose, timeout behavior, and return shape. It does not specify behavior for an already-graded submission or polling frequency, but these are minor given the context. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'timeout seconds', providing units for the timeout parameter, but does not explain submission_id or the optionality/default of timeout. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but only minimal value is added beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('a submission'), with a clear outcome ('until grading finishes, then return the full result'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like codebreaker_get_submission by focusing on the waiting/polling action, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies usage when you need to wait for grading to complete, and mentions the timeout behavior. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like codebreaker_get_submission for already-completed submissions, but the polling context is evident and sufficient for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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