vibe_wait

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the blocking nature, the default scope, the timeout=0 special case, and that output is one line per job. It does not say what happens when the timeout expires before any job ends (error vs partial result), which is the key behavioral ambiguity for a wait 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics (blocking wait, scope, timeout) before the defaults and output note. No redundant or filler wording; every clause conveys information.

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 3-parameter, zero-required, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, special values, and the shape of the return ('one line per job'). The main remaining gap is the outcome when the timeout elapses, which an agent needs in order to handle the result correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: job_ids is explained with its default of all active jobs, timeout is explained as a bound with a documented timeout=0 status-only mode, and wait_all is defined as every-vs-any. Only the unit/format of timeout and the expected id format are left unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Wait until ... job[s] ... ends') and clarifies the scope of the wait (any job, or every job when wait_all is set). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling vibe_result, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a blocking wait, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Useful context is given implicitly: default job_ids covers all active jobs, and timeout=0 is a pure status check rather than a wait. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer vibe_wait over vibe_result or vibe_submit, so the agent must infer the choice from sibling names.

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