wait_for_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses blocking behavior, the timeout limit, and the two possible return payloads. It could additionally indicate what happens on error or whether this has side effects, but for a waiting operation the behavior is clearly communicated.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and timeout, then the return behavior, earning every word it uses.

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 core behavior and return values are covered, which is good given there is no output schema. However, for a tool with zero annotation and schema description coverage, the missing parameter explanations and lack of guidance for choosing this over job_status leave meaningful gaps.

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 needed to explain all three parameters. It only mentions `timeout` in seconds and the notion of a saved path, which indirectly relates to `save`, but it never defines `job_id` or the exact meaning/effect of `save` as a boolean.

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 ('Block up to `timeout` seconds') on a specific resource ('a job'), and explains the two possible return outcomes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like job_status and fetch_result by emphasizing the blocking wait behavior.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to block until a job completes, with a timeout fallback returning the status JSON. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with non-blocking alternatives like job_status or explains when someone should prefer one over the other.

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