wait_for_completion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the tool 'WILL freeze the conversation until training ends or timeout' and documents the default timeout. This is strong transparency for a blocking operation, though it doesn't describe what happens on timeout or failure.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose, usage pattern, behavioral warning, and default timeout in the first four sentences, followed by a clean args list. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers purpose, usage, blocking behavior, timeout, and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The main gap is the unspecified behavior when timeout expires or when the run does not exist, which would help an agent reason about edge cases in a 4-hour blocking call.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: run_id is 'The run to wait for,' timeout is 'Max seconds to wait (default 14400 = 4 hours),' and poll_interval is 'Seconds between internal status checks (default 60).' This adds meaningful semantics and defaults beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Block until a training run finishes,' a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_first_metrics (which waits for an earlier milestone) and check_completion (which likely checks status non-blockingly).

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 states the intended usage pattern: 'Use this to chain runs automatically: start skill A, wait_for_completion, then start skill B.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly identify alternatives or when not to use it.

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