Wait for Codex Agents (blocking)

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it blocks the entire turn, workers do not need the call to stay alive, serial waiting multiplies the stall, timeout is not a failure, and the return value is a lean report for ready and still-running workers. The idempotentHint and readOnlyHint are consistent with the description, and this extra context is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a blocking call.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core blocking behavior is front-loaded, usage rules follow immediately, the agentIds guidance is explicit, and the return behavior closes the loop. There is no filler or repetition of the schema's plain parameter descriptions.

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 blocking tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, what happens on timeout, how to batch workers, and what the report contains. The main gap is the undocumented afterCursor parameter, which could matter when paginating events/results over long waits, and which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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?

With 83% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top by explaining the semantic constraint around agentIds ('always pass every outstanding worker'), the distinction between agentId/agentIds, and the meaning of timeout behavior ('a timeout is not a failure'). However, afterCursor remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, preventing a 5.

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 names a specific verb ('Block'), a specific resource ('watched workers'), and the defining behavior ('until ... ready'). It also directly distinguishes itself from sibling agent_result ('poll with agent_result instead'), so an agent can tell it apart without opening the sibling schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use ('only once you have run out of other work'), an explicit alternative with a condition ('while you still have anything to do, dispatch it and poll with agent_result'), and a clear best-practice for parameter usage ('always pass every outstanding worker in agentIds rather than waiting on one at a time'). This fully routes the agent's decision.

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