wait_for_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the polling behavior, the success condition (ping succeeds), and the timeout boundary. It could add what happens on timeout (error vs. false return), but it already gives an accurate expectation of the tool's blocking behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the polling/timeout mechanic is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does not specify what the agent will receive on success or on timeout. It also assumes the agent knows this should be used after launch_game. The core behavior is covered, but the outcome semantics are underspecified.

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 100% and both timeout and interval are already described with defaults in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that polling happens; this is an adequate baseline.

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 action: waiting for the game to start and for the Unity Inspector TCP server to become responsive. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like launch_game and ping by focusing on readiness-waiting rather than launching or one-off checking.

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 a clear usage context: call this after launching the game and before issuing commands that require a responsive server. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as ping for a quick connection check, nor does it state when not to use it.

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