wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the blocking nature and the 600 s ceiling, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about what happens on timeout, whether the wait is interruptible, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action, scope, and limit are all front-loaded before the return-value clause.

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?

Three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the wait semantics and the timeout cap but leaves timeout defaults, return-report structure, and failure behavior unspecified.

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 partially does: 'uno o todos' maps to the any/all enum, and 'máx 600 s' documents the timeout_s ceiling, though the schema lacks the default and units for timeout_s and never clarifies job_ids semantics.

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 (wait) and resource (jobs), plus scope (one or all) and a hard cap (max 600 s). It does not differentiate itself from neighboring tools such as status or result, which an agent could easily confuse with waiting on a job.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer waiting over polling status, reading result, or cancelling. The 'one or all' phrasing hints at the mode parameter but never states the condition under which each is appropriate.

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