flow_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the polling mechanism (every 5 seconds) and the timeout limit, which is useful, but it does not specify what happens when timeoutSec is exceeded, whether polling stops immediately, or how failures are reported.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the key behavioral detail. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 two-parameter wait operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the main behavior, the return value, polling cadence, and timeout. The only notable gap is the timeout-exceeded behavior and how to obtain a valid jobId, which prevents a perfect score.

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 50%, so the description should help compensate. It slightly enriches timeoutSec by stating that polling occurs up to that limit, but jobId is only implied by the word 'job' and gains no additional semantic detail beyond its property name.

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 states a precise action (wait), the target (a job), and the outcome (returned file paths). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like flow_status, which checks status without blocking, and flow_generate/edit/cancel, which do not wait and return paths.

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 makes clear that this tool is the blocking wait-and-collect step after a job has been started, with a timeout limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a top score.

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