job_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the call is pending and resumes when the job completes, fails, or is cancelled, which is a key non-obvious behavior. However, it does not clarify what happens on timeout or how timeout_seconds and poll_interval_seconds affect the wait.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 core lifecycle and usage context are covered, and the output schema exists to explain return values. However, for a blocking operation with four parameters, the lack of parameter semantics and timeout/error edge-case behavior leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. job_id is inferable from the name and context, but agent_name, timeout_seconds, and poll_interval_seconds are not described anywhere. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for a background job to finish and return its review as a completion ping.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like job_status and job_result by describing the blocking/notification behavior rather than a polling or result-fetch operation.

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 tool says exactly when to use it: 'Call this immediately after delegate_task(background=True)' and explicitly tells the agent not to use alternatives: 'instead of repeatedly polling job_status or ending the turn.' This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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