Wait for a run

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but they say nothing about blocking. The description adds the critical behavioral trait that this call blocks up to 600 s and never triggers work, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It omits what happens if the wait expires (error vs. partial result), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the blocking constraint and the non-starting guarantee are both stated up front. 'Read-only' slightly duplicates the annotation but costs almost nothing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place return behavior could be explained, and 'returns its result' is vague about what that result contains. Similarly, timeout-expiry behavior is unstated. It is adequate for calling the tool but incomplete for interpreting the outcome.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (run ref/numeric id, timeout_seconds with default 300 and max 600) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 600 s cap but adds no new semantics for the run reference. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (waits) and resource (run), plus an explicit negative boundary ('Does not start anything') that separates it from start_run/rerun_failed. It does not explicitly name get_run, the obvious non-blocking sibling, but the blocking semantics make the distinction inferable.

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?

Implies the use case (you want to block on a queued or running run rather than poll) but never states when to prefer this over get_run or list_runs polling. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so usage is only implied.

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