shell_job_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that the call blocks, that timeout does NOT kill the job, and the `running` flag on expiry. It is softer on return shape beyond 'output' and any auth/concurrency constraints, but the important non-obvious semantics are covered.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact args block; every line carries information, no filler. Easily scannable.

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?

No output schema or annotations, but the description covers the essential return semantics (output plus the `running` flag) and the timeout contract. Slightly thin on exact return format, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it documents all three params with meaning beyond the schema, notably that timeout does not kill the job and that tail_lines=0 means all lines, plus the provenance of job_id from shell_start.

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+resource with scope: block until a background job exits then return its output. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling shell_job_output by contrasting blocking versus polling, so an agent can select it without opening another schema.

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?

Names the alternative (polling shell_job_output in a loop) and states the advantage, then gives the recovery path on timeout: the job keeps running, `running` returns true, call again or kill it. When-to-use, tradeoff, and follow-up action are all explicit.

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