ouroboros_job_wait

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'briefly' and 'wait', but the crucial default behavior (immediate snapshot when timeout_seconds is 0) is only described in the schema parameter documentation, not in the main description. 'Briefly' is vague and arguably misleading without the schema, but the schema does compensate, and there is no direct contradiction.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. Every word earns its place: 'wait', 'briefly', 'background job', 'change state', 'conversational polling', 'after a start command'.

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?

While the schema is rich, the description alone omits important context such as the default no-wait behavior, what 'change state' covers (e.g., progress, terminal status), and how this relates to job_status/job_result. There is no output schema, so the response format is unstated. The description orients the user but is not complete for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters, including defaults like timeout_seconds=0 and options for wait_for and stream. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb 'Wait' and a clear resource 'background job to change state', which distinguishes it from sibling status/result tools. The second sentence adds useful context about use after a start command, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like job_status or job_result.

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 states when the tool is useful: 'conversational polling after a start command'. This gives clear context, but it doesn't provide exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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