wait_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the timeout bound, and the fact that it returns a status/result even when the job has not finished. This is meaningful transparency, though it does not mention error cases like invalid job_id.

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 entire description is one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the blocking behavior, states the timeout parameter, and conveys the return guarantee efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter wait tool, the description covers the core behavior and return guarantee, and an output schema exists to document the result shape. It could add a note about already-finished jobs or invalid IDs, but nothing essential is missing for correct usage.

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 compensate. It clarifies that timeout_s is measured in seconds and controls the blocking duration, but it does not explain job_id beyond the implicit 'a job'. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

States a specific verb ('Block'), the resource ('a job'), and the outcome ('returns its status/result either way'). This clearly distinguishes wait_job from siblings like job_status or list_jobs, which check or list rather than block.

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 conveys a clear usage context: call this when you are willing to block up to a timeout for a job to finish, and you will get the result whether or not it completed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use job_status for non-blocking checks', so it stops short of a 5.

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