resolve_wait_for_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior ('Other MCP calls wait while this runs'), the maximum timeout, and the consequence of stop_on_timeout=True (calls StopRendering). It also states what is reported on completion. This is substantive transparency, though it does not detail error handling or edge cases like failed renders, which could be more explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core behavior first, then adding constraints and consequences. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is compact and well-structured, ideal for quick comprehension by an agent.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, blocking nature, timeout limits, and stop_on_timeout behavior. It does not explain poll_seconds or mention any prerequisites (e.g., render must already be started), but given the tool's straightforward nature, the description is largely complete. A small gap is the lack of clarification on what 'final status' includes or how errors are reported.

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 must add meaning. It explains job_id (empty means wait for all rendering) and stop_on_timeout (triggers StopRendering on deadline), which are genuinely useful. However, it does not clarify poll_seconds (the polling interval) or timeout_seconds beyond the max, leaving those parameters dependent on their names and defaults. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 verb (wait), resource (render job), and what it does (blocks until finished, then reports status and output file). It also specifies behavior when job_id is empty (waits for all rendering), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_get_render_status or resolve_start_render. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives practical guidance on usage: it warns that other MCP calls wait while this runs and recommends modest timeouts (max 3600 s). It also explains stop_on_timeout behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of polling get_render_status') or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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