Wait for Batch Task Group

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains two possible outcomes (full results on completion, minimal progress counts on timeout), clarifies the poll-up-to pattern, and confirms no task summaries leak on timeout. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, both front-loaded with the core action and outcome. No wasted words; every sentence adds value about behavior or return conditions.

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 output schema exists (not shown but noted in signals), the description does not need to document return fields. It covers the key behavioral scenarios (success and timeout), parameter constraints, and source of group_id. Slight deduction for not mentioning whether the call can be re-invoked after timeout to continue waiting, but annotations imply idempotency.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that wait_seconds controls polling duration with a clear range and default, and that group_id must come from omp_run_batch_compact. The description does not describe format or validation beyond schema, but it effectively contextualizes both parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait for'), identifies the resource ('OMP task group'), and clearly defines the scope (terminal status, polling behavior). Distinguished from siblings like omp_wait by specifying 'Batch Task Group' and referencing omp_run_batch_compact.

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 implies when to use this tool (after omp_run_batch_compact) by requiring group_id, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other cases. The context of sibling tools provides partial guidance.

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