job_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing safety context. The description adds valuable behavioral detail not in annotations: it is event-driven, waits server-side, consumes no model turns, and should be called right after job_start. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by a succinct usage directive. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 core waiting behavior and usage context well, but with no output schema it omits details like return format, what happens on timeout, and what constitutes a 'terminal state' (success, failure, cancellation). Sibling tools like job_watch remain somewhat ambiguous relative to this one.

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 only 33% (only timeoutMs has a schema description). The description does not explain jobId (e.g., that it comes from job_start) or tailLines (what it controls), nor does it add meaning for those parameters. This gap is not compensated by the tool description.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Wait inside the MCP server until a tracked job reaches a terminal state.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like job_watch by emphasizing that it is event-driven and consumes no repeated model turns while waiting, making its unique purpose clear.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call it immediately as the next tool call after job_start, without intermediate commentary, profile listing, status checks, or extra planning.' This provides a clear when-to-use context and excludes certain actions, but it does not name alternative tools for comparison or state when not to use it.

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