Wait for a Codex run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the call blocks up to a timeout and returns the run's result. However, it never states what happens when the timeout elapses (error vs. partial result), nor that the schema caps the wait at 285 seconds, leaving the most failure-prone behavior unexplained.

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?

Two tight sentences with the blocking scope front-loaded and the eligibility note second. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return and safety context. It states that a result is returned, but for a wait tool the agent still needs to know the timeout-expiry outcome and what 'result' contains; the essentials are covered, the edges are not.

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 runId and timeoutSeconds (with its default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes timeoutSeconds by name and adds no format or semantics beyond it, so the 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?

Specific verb (wait) plus resource (a running Codex run) and the precise scope ('finish its current round'). It is distinguishable from the similarly-named bridge_wait by tying the wait to a Codex orchestration run, though it never names the sibling it should not be confused with.

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?

'Works for runs started by any bridge process' clarifies which runs are eligible, which is real guidance. But there is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative (bridge_orchestration_status) for checking a run without blocking.

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