wait_any_completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the long-poll behavior: returns immediately if any completion is available, otherwise waits up to max_wait_seconds. The loop re-entry and default time rationale are explained. However, it does not detail what constitutes a 'completion' or any potential side effects, though for a poll tool this is acceptable.

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 with three sentences, each serving a purpose: first defines the core behavior, second explains the immediate-return condition, third provides practical usage guidance. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 this is a simple long-poll tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: action, parameters, behavior, and use case. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'since' as a cursor and states that 'max_wait_seconds' default is below the MCP transport ceiling. This provides context beyond the schema, though it could specify the format of 'since' (e.g., timestamp).

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 'Long-poll up to max_wait_seconds for any new completion since the cursor', specifying the exact verb (long-poll/wait) and resource (any completion). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wait_dispatch by focusing on any completion rather than a specific dispatch.

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 explicitly says 'Useful when watching schedule ticks land without polling each tick's job_id separately', providing a clear use case. It also explains the default timing strategy: 'Default 50s is below the MCP transport ceiling so you can re-enter in a loop', guiding when and how to use this tool effectively.

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