dsh_await

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing that repeated calls are safe, that timeout returns current state rather than error, and that archived results from reaped agents remain readable. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors that help the agent decide when and how to call the tool.

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 description is tightly structured: one purpose sentence, then behavioral notes, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition or fluff. The format uses clear separation and remains easy to scan.

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 covers the most important contextual aspects: repeatability, timeout behavior, run provenance, and archived result accessibility. Since an output schema is present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. Minor gaps like error cases for unknown run_id are not critical for this tool.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds useful semantics: run_id is tied to dsh_delegate/dsh_continue, and wait_seconds is 'Maximum time to block' with tuning guidance for large tasks. This largely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Wait for a run to finish and return its result.' It identifies the tool's resource (a delegated/continued run) and distinguishes it from siblings like dsh_list, dsh_cancel, and dsh_transcript by directly stating what this wait operation does.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool, such as waiting on a run identified from dsh_delegate or dsh_continue, and gives practical guidance to use a longer wait_seconds for big tasks. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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