actiond_job_wait

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

The description discloses that the tool blocks, has a timeout that aborts with an error, and never cancels the job itself. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), which are consistent with these statements.

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 concise yet thorough, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: describing the blocking behavior, specifying when to call it, explaining the timeout effect, and directing to alternatives. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 fully covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, timeout behavior, and related tools. It leaves no ambiguity for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (id and timeout) with 100% coverage, but the description adds the default timeout value (300 seconds) and explains that the timeout aborts with an error without canceling the job. This provides meaningful additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 blocks until a CI/CD job reaches terminal status and returns the full job detail, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from polling actiond_action_get and mentions actiond_job_cancel for aborting, providing clear differentiation from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to call it right after a push surfaces job IDs, with a concrete example ('lgh up' reports triggered_job_ids). It also states when not to use it: prefer over polling and use actiond_job_cancel for aborting, giving clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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