Waits for a KeyShot render job to finish by checking status every 2 seconds, then returns the final render state.
Attend la fin d'un rendu (scrute toutes les 2 s) et rend son état final.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_s | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing that it polls every 2 seconds and returns the final state. It does not explain timeout behavior, which matters because timeout_s defaults to 600, so an agent cannot tell what happens if the render does not finish in time.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical polling interval is compact and directly relevant.
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?
The output schema covers return values and the annotations cover read-only safety, so those do not need repeating. Still, for a blocking wait tool with an undocumented timeout parameter and no schema descriptions, the description should explain timeout semantics and job_id expectations to be fully complete.
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 needs to compensate for both parameters. It does not explain what job_id refers to or what timeout_s controls, leaving the schema's bare titles as the only parameter information.
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: waits for the end of a render and returns its final state. The polling detail distinguishes it implicitly from a one-shot status check, but it does not name render_status as the sibling alternative.
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 polling behavior implies this is the blocking variant to use when the caller wants to wait until completion, suggesting render_status for non-blocking checks. However, that distinction is left implicit and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.