lc_wait_job

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

The description discloses that the tool polls repeatedly and has a bounded timeout, which is useful. However, it does not define 'terminal state', specify behavior on timeout, or mention side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Poll'. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity, with zero wasted space.

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 polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks crucial details: what the return value is on terminal state versus timeout, the significance of required parameters oid and job_id, and how the polling mechanism behaves. This leaves the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (oid, job_id, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any value beyond the schema's type definitions, leaving the agent without guidance on usage.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'poll', the resource 'one service job', and the condition 'until terminal state or bounded timeout'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like lc_get_job (which returns current state) and lc_poll_search_query (which polls queries).

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 phrase 'poll one service job' implies it is used to wait for a job to complete, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_get_job or lc_list_jobs. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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