job_wait

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it blocks up to a timeout, streams progress messages as progress notifications, and returns state. The key non-obvious trait — that timeout is a successful result carrying Status running — is explicitly disclosed, which is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior and followed by the most decision-relevant caveat. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant with the schema.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still states it returns job state. It covers blocking semantics and timeout handling well; only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for an unknown or already-finished jobId and whether progress notifications are optional.

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 100%, so jobId and timeoutSeconds (including the 1800s cap and 60s default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'up to the timeout' and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Waits') with the resource ('a job') and states the terminal conditions: end-of-job or timeout. It implicitly contrasts with the polling sibling job_status by emphasizing blocking-with-timeout, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives one genuinely useful usage rule — a timeout returns Status running and is not an error — which steers the agent away from retrying. However, it never says when to prefer this over job_status or editor_job_start, so the use-vs-alternative decision is only implied by the word 'Waits'.

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