agda_job_await

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two behaviors that matter: the call blocks for up to waitMs, and it degrades to a pending result rather than failing when the job is still running. It omits error/failure-job behavior and any note on calling repeatedly on the same job id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the blocking behavior and the pending fallback are both stated compactly and nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return-value semantics, and it only covers the pending case — what a completed result looks like (result shape, statuses, completed vs failed) is unstated. For a 2-param job-polling tool this is adequate but leaves a clear gap.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema and the description merely restates waitMs. It adds no format or edge-case hints (e.g. waitMs=0 meaning an immediate poll) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Collect the result of a pending Agda job' tells an agent exactly what the call delivers. However, it does not distinguish itself from near siblings like agda_job_status or agda_job_await_any, which an agent could easily confuse with this blocking variant.

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?

'waiting up to waitMs; returns pending again if still running' implies the blocking use case and the poll-loop pattern that follows from it. But it never states when to prefer this over agda_job_status (non-blocking check) or agda_job_await_any (wait on multiple jobs), leaving sibling selection to inference.

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