job_wait

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 only states that it waits up to a timeout, but does not reveal what happens on timeout (error vs. return), whether the call is safe to repeat, or if it immediately returns when the job is already finished. These are significant gaps for a blocking operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose in the fewest possible words.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and only a basic description, it lacks critical behavioral and boundary details. The existence of an output schema helps return-value understanding, but the description still fails to explain timeout behavior, edge cases, or prerequisites, leaving an agent uncertain about invocation semantics.

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 for parameter meaning. It adds some context for timeout_s by explaining its role in the wait, but it does not explain that job_id identifies the specific job to wait for beyond the implicit 'your jobs'. The description adds minimal semantic value over 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 states a specific action ('Wait up to timeout_s') and a clear resource ('one of your jobs to finish'). It effectively communicates the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like job_status or wait_for_events, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for blocking until completion rather than polling status, nor does it reference any conditions for using job_cancel or job_status. The usage context is entirely left to inference.

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