等一批任务到终态

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call blocks, the timeout is capped at 600s, and plugin cold start can take ~30s so an aggressive timeout produces false 'not finished' results. It does not describe what the call returns on success vs. timeout.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the core blocking behavior and its terminal states come first, and the operational caveat follows. The cold-start note is worth its length, though the 600s cap is repeated verbatim in the schema.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back — it does not clarify whether the result reports per-job terminal states or which jobs timed out. stateDir is also undocumented, and zero required parameters leave the calling contract 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 only 33% — jobIds and stateDir have no schema descriptions. The description compensates partly by explaining jobIds (the jobs to wait on) and adding real meaning to timeout_sec (600s cap plus cold-start sizing advice), but stateDir remains entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 gives a precise verb+resource: block until the given jobIds reach a terminal state (COMPLETE/FAILED/CANCELLED) or time out. The blocking semantics are inherently distinct from the sibling tools chrome_download_status / chrome_download_progress (presumably non-blocking polls), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to await completion. There is no explicit 'use this instead of polling status' or 'do not call when you just need a snapshot' guidance, though the cold-start/timeout warning does steer practical setup.

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