Wait for OMP Task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value: polling behavior, timeout defaults and max, and that it returns status only at terminality or deadline. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Very concise: two sentences that cover purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 the tool is a polling wait with only two parameters, the description is largely complete. The output schema exists, so return value is covered. Minor gap: doesn't specify that the job must already exist (vs. being started elsewhere).

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%, but description explains both parameters: job_id (required, implicit), wait_seconds (with default 30s, max 60s). It adds meaning beyond schema types and constraints, but the parameter names are self-explanatory.

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?

Describes a specific action: waiting for an OMP job to reach terminal status. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning polling with configurable timeout and return of status/summary.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: waiting for an existing job to completion. The description includes a behavioral guideline ('Avoid polling in a tight loop'), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like omp_wait_group or omp_cancel.

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