Wait for job

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation concerns. The description adds the critical behavioral trait that this tool blocks synchronously until exit or timeout, which is essential for an agent to understand invocation behavior (e.g., it may take a long time, not immediately return). It does not specify timeout failure semantics, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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 short sentences with zero fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place; nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, this description covers the essential behavior and gives routing guidance relative to its closest sibling. Missing details like timeout error handling are minor and addressed by the output schema/system semantics. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by directly mentioning 'timeout,' giving meaning to timeout_seconds, and 'a job' maps to job_id. The schema provides default and requiredness, so together the parameter meaning is sufficiently clear.

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 ('Block') with a clear resource and condition ('until a job exits or timeout'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling job_status by saying 'Prefer over polling job_status,' so an agent can confidently identify its role.

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 'Prefer over polling job_status' is explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of an alternative. It names the alternative and gives a clear preference, which is the key routing decision an agent faces. It does not exhaustively cover all siblings, but the central conflict is resolved.

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