agent_wait

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

Annotations already declare it as a safe, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add two non-obvious traits — the wait is time-bounded and a timeout does not restart the job — but it never says what the agent receives at timeout (partial result, error, or status) or what progress reporting looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; efficient, though its brevity is under-specification rather than true density.

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?

For a polling/waiting tool with an undocumented deadline parameter, no output schema, and nearby siblings named jobs_wait and jobs_get, the description leaves too much unexplained: deadline units and defaults, timeout return behavior, and progress semantics.

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 must carry both parameters, yet it explains neither. It implies a deadline via 'bounded' but gives no units (seconds?), no default, and no explanation of the 'job' integer beyond the ambiguous word 'job'.

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 phrase 'bounded job waiting' names a verb and resource, but 'job' is undefined in an environment that also exposes jobs_get and jobs_wait, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone how agent_wait differs from those siblings.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over jobs_wait, jobs_get, or agent_status, and no exclusion conditions. The only hint is a behavioral property (no restart on timeout), not a selection rule.

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