agda_job_await_any

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly reveals the key trait: the tool returns as soon as the first of several pending jobs finishes, not waiting for all. It also implies non-blocking behavior via waitMs in the schema. However, it does not describe return format or timeout specifics, but those are partially covered by parameter descriptions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Wait for the FIRST of several pending jobs to finish') and immediately provides practical context ('use after fanning work out across workspaces'). Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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, has no output schema, and the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description covers the essential behavior and usage context, but does not explicitly state what happens when waitMs expires or what the return value looks like. However, given the schema clarity and simplicity of the operation, the combination is reasonably complete.

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 (jobs and waitMs) are already well-documented. The description adds the conceptual framing of a 'race' and the fan-out context, but that is more about usage than parameter meaning. No additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action: wait for the FIRST of several pending jobs to finish. This distinguishes it from sibling agda_job_await (which likely waits for a specific job) by emphasizing the race semantics and the 'several' vs. 'one' distinction.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'use after fanning work out across workspaces.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, implying a multi-job parallel scenario. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names (agda_job_await) make the contrast clear enough.

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