Wait For Agent Run

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it blocks until terminal states and streams live events. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key feature (streaming). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description covers the essential states and streaming capability. However, it does not explain the return value or the fallback to polling when streaming is unsupported. Overall, it is largely complete for a blocking wait tool.

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?

The schema covers 3 of 5 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on the remaining parameters (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms) beyond what the schema provides. No additional semantic information is added for parameter usage.

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 waits for a Glitch Agent run to reach terminal states (complete, pause, fail, cancel, timeout). It also mentions streaming events, distinguishing it from sibling tools like glitch_get_agent_run which likely provides a non-blocking status check.

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 when waiting for a run to finish, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. No guidance on fallback behavior for streaming is provided.

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