job_wait

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

Despite having no annotations, it discloses the key behavioral trait: it blocks and that the timeout will be clamped to at most 600s. It does not mention behavior for missing or failed jobs, but the core blocking-and-timeout contract is well communicated.

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 short sentences deliver the complete contract: wait until finished, or wait until timeout, and timeout is capped. There is no redundant information and the most important semantics are front-loaded.

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 description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially because an output schema is present. It could still state what happens if the job ID is invalid or whether job failure is treated as a terminal state, but these are not severe gaps.

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 partially compensates by specifying timeout in seconds and explaining the 600s cap. job_id is not detailed in words, but its purpose is clear from the tool name and the natural reading of the sentence.

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 tool's action, wait, and its resource, a job, with a well-specified termination condition: job completion or timeout. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_status and job_artifacts, which check or use jobs without blocking.

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 wait and timeout behavior implies that this is for callers that need to block until a job reaches a terminal state. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over job_status or other non-blocking status checks, leaving that routing decision mostly implicit.

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