sym_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns intermediate results on timeout and requires a subsequent call, and it enumerates the return contents (items, file paths, links, cost data, errors). This is more than a minimal statement and provides useful behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects like resource consumption or authentication.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output details. The first sentence states the purpose and return contents; the second covers timeout behavior. There is zero wasted wording, and the structure is highly scannable.

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?

Given no output schema, the description must explain the return values, and it does: items, local file paths, links, cost data, errors. It also explains timeout behavior. It does not specify the exact return structure or edge cases (e.g., missing job), but for a simple wait tool with two parameters, this is fairly complete. The timeout parameter is well-described in the schema, and the description adds the necessary context about the intermediate picture.

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 50%: timeoutSec has a descriptive schema, but jobId lacks any description. The tool description partially compensates by indicating jobId is used in the path structure (symflow-out/<job>/...), which clarifies its role. However, it does not fully explain jobId's format or requirements, and the schema already covers timeoutSec well. The description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 function: 'Wait for a job and return its items'. It specifies the resource (job) and the outcome (items with local file paths, links, cost data, errors). This distinguishes it from siblings like sym_status (which likely only checks status) by emphasizing the wait-and-return behavior. The inclusion of output details adds specificity.

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: you call this to wait for a job and get results, and on timeout you call again. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sym_status or sym_log, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool. The timeout behavior is mentioned, but the guidance is mostly implicit.

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