agda_job_await

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the key waiting behavior and the fact that it returns 'pending' if still running. However, this information is largely a paraphrase of the schema's waitMs description ('Milliseconds to wait for completion before returning pending again'). It adds little beyond the schema, and does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether the job is consumed after collection.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then clarifies the waiting behavior with a semicolon. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential contract: collect the result of a pending job, wait up to waitMs, and return pending if still running. It doesn't describe the success return format or any error conditions, but for a straightforward await operation, the description is sufficiently complete. A 5 would require more detail about return values or edge cases.

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 the parameters 'job' and 'waitMs' are already well-documented. The description's mention of 'waiting up to waitMs' essentially restates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and this description does not exceed it.

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 ('Collect the result') and identifies the resource ('a pending Agda job'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like agda_job_status (which likely just checks status) and agda_job_await_any (which awaits any job). The phrase 'waiting up to waitMs' and 'returns pending again if still running' further clarifies the tool's specific role.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a job ID from a pending tool result and want to collect its result. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough. No mention of when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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