Retrieve an existing Raywake job and its outputs, optionally waiting up to 45 seconds, without starting or billing a new generation.
Free. Read an existing job and its outputs, optionally waiting up to 45 seconds. Does not start or bill a new generation. Review states are terminal; do not resubmit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description still adds real value: it is free, does not incur billing, waits up to 45 seconds, and that review states are terminal. It omits what happens if the wait expires before completion, which would be the last piece an agent needs.
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?
Three short sentences with the key constraint ('Free') front-loaded and zero repetition of schema data. Slightly clipped phrasing ('Free.' as a fragment) but every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a read-only polling tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: no cost, no side effects, wait semantics, and terminal-state behavior. Missing only the timeout-expiry behavior and how to interpret a still-running result.
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 carry parameter meaning. It explains `wait_seconds` semantically ('optionally waiting up to 45 seconds'), but says nothing about `job_id` (format, where to obtain it, length constraints), leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
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 and resource ('Read an existing job and its outputs') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `generate` by declaring it 'Does not start or bill a new generation'. An agent can tell exactly which tool performs retrieval.
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?
Clearly implies when to use it (polling an existing job) and warns against misuse ('do not resubmit' when review states are terminal). It does not explicitly name `generate` as the alternative for new work, so routing guidance is inferential rather than prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.