wait_for_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description conveys the core blocking behavior (wait) and return of results. It doesn't detail failure or timeout edge cases, but the timeout parameter description in the schema adds relevant context, so transparency is solid but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no unnecessary words. The typo 'all of all of them' is minor and doesn't impair clarity.

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 tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main use case and parallel execution benefit, though it omits potential partial-failure behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the queue_only=true workflow, linking to the prompt_ids concept, but doesn't add additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for multiple queued jobs to complete and return all results.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'queue_only=true' workflow.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this after queueing multiple jobs with queue_only=true to wait for all of them at once.' This is a precise when-to-use instruction, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like get_job_status for single jobs.

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