wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses server-side blocking, return shape same as poll, timeout behavior, and reusability. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a wait function, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. Zero wasted words.

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 wait tool with an output schema (implied from 'same shape as poll'), the description covers the essential behavior, contrasts with a key sibling, and explains edge cases. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 compensate. It implicitly references job_id and timeout_ms but adds no extra detail beyond their names (e.g., format constraints, allowed values). The parameters are self-explanatory, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 tool blocks until a terminal state or timeout, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'poll' by replacing multiple poll calls. The verb 'wait' and the resource 'job' are specific.

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 explicitly contrasts with poll (reduces polling cost) and explains the timeout behavior (returns current state, can wait again). It clearly states when to use this tool, though it could more explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need periodic status updates).

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