task_wait

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

The description reveals the terminal-state detection mechanism ('EXIT:<code> written'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior (despite a timeoutMs parameter), what happens on timeout, or whether the wait is polling-based.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 is adequate for a simple wait operation but leaves gaps: no return value explanation, no timeout/error behavior, and no mention of prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context but is not completely inadequate.

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 description provides no information about jobDir or timeoutMs beyond their names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the agent's inference.

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: waiting for a task to reach a terminal state. The phrase 'EXIT:<code> written' gives a specific completion condition, and the verb 'wait' distinguishes it from siblings like task_run or task_kill.

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 implies usage after launching a task (e.g., task_run), but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The context of sibling tools suggests the typical use case, but there is no direct guidance.

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