Waits for a run to reach a terminal state or require attention, polling up to 50 seconds so agents can monitor progress without blocking.
Short long-poll (≤50 s) until the run is terminal (or needs attention). For long runs use the Shell wait_cmd instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| until | No | terminal | |
| run_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_s | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does the important work of disclosing that this call blocks (long-poll) and is capped at ≤50 s, which prevents an agent from assuming it is a cheap non-blocking read. It does not say what happens on timeout expiry or whether the call is side-effect free.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the blocking cap stated first and the alternative deferred to the end. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core blocking contract is covered. What remains missing for a tool with no annotations is the timeout-expiry behavior and confirmation that the poll has no side effects.
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 carries the burden and it does explain the `until` semantics (terminal vs. needs attention) and the 50 s ceiling that bounds `timeout_s`. It never mentions the 30 s default or what `timeout_s` does on expiry, leaving a real gap for a 3-parameter tool with no schema prose.
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 operation (a bounded long-poll) on a specific resource (the run) and states the terminating condition (terminal or needs attention). It is clearly distinguishable from a status snapshot, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closely related session_status sibling.
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?
"For long runs use the Shell wait_cmd instead" gives an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying when *not* to block at all (e.g. use session_status for a non-blocking peek).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.