hmc_wait_for_job

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: it polls until terminal state, returns the final job entry, and if timeout_seconds elapses, returns the last-seen entry regardless of status, advising to check the Status field. This is valuable context that is not present in the schema.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, return behavior, and timeout handling without repetition or filler. The most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: terminal states, return value, and timeout semantics. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results, especially with the output schema available.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains timeout_seconds behavior clearly, but job_uuid and poll_interval are only implied by context and naming. The description adds some semantic value but does not fully cover all three parameters.

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 tool polls an HMC job until a terminal state (COMPLETED / FAILED / EXCEPTION) and returns the final job entry. This distinguishes it from related siblings like hmc_get_job and hmc_recent_jobs, which are for single retrieval or listing rather than waiting.

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 conveys that this tool is used to wait for asynchronous HMC job completion, with explicit timeout behavior. It implies when to use it (when you need to block until a job finishes) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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