job_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses timeout and polling behavior, and deprecation of poll_interval. However, it does not mention blocking behavior, error handling, or idempotency, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first states purpose, the second clarifies parameter aliases. Slightly could be improved by front-loading the most critical information, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no annotations, output schema exists but is not described, and 4 parameters (1 required), the description is too brief. It fails to explain return value structure, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., job must exist). Leaves important context unaddressed.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for timeout_seconds and poll_interval_seconds (timeout and polling cadence) and notes poll_interval as compatibility alias. But job_id is not explained, and defaults are not mentioned, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 action ('Wait for a durable job') and specifies key parameters (timeout, polling cadence). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on waiting, but does not explicitly contrast with tools like job_status or job_start.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Missing context such as 'use after starting a job with job_start' or 'prefer job_status for immediate status checks'. Only implies usage through the description of waiting.

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