subagent_wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dual wake conditions (job completion or subagent message/question) and the Claude Code behavior where long waits background themselves and notify on return. It does not disclose what happens when the wait times out or any 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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the operational guidance second. The Claude Code backgrounding note earns its place by explaining why blocking here is safe, though it is slightly environment-specific.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and 'return what happened' is only a gesture at it. It also omits timeout semantics entirely, which matters for a tool with a 30-minute default and a 1-hour cap. Adequate but with a real gap for an agent that needs to know what a timeout yields.

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% for 2 params. 'One of the given jobs' usefully clarifies that job_ids is an any-of set rather than an all-of set, which the schema does not state. However, timeout_seconds (default 1800, max 3600) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both description and 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?

States a specific verb (wait) and resource (given jobs/subagents) plus the return condition: one job finishes or a subagent sends a message/question. It implicitly separates itself from the polling siblings via 'instead of polling', but never names subagent_status or subagent_result, so the sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear directive: 'call this after starting jobs instead of polling', which tells the agent both the trigger (jobs already started) and the anti-pattern to avoid. It stops short of naming the alternative tools it replaces, but the when/when-not is unambiguous.

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