Wait for a scene job

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool polls repeatedly and terminates on done/error/timeout. This signals that the call may be long-running, which is useful for agent planning. It does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, resource, and termination conditions efficiently, though it could have included a bit more parameter context without becoming verbose.

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 simple polling tool with read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable: it says what it waits for and when it stops. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns on done/error/timeout, nor how scan_id and job_id relate to launching a scene job.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needed to explain what scan_id, job_id, poll_s, and timeout_s mean. It only indirectly references timeout as a terminal condition and never explains the identifiers or the poll interval. An agent must infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll'), a resource ('a broker-thread scene job'), and the terminal conditions ('until done/error/timeout'). This makes the core purpose clear and distinguishes it from one-shot status tools like scene_job_status, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'Poll ... until done/error/timeout' implies the intended use: block or repeatedly check on a scene job while waiting for completion. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over scene_job_status, workspace_job_wait, or other job-related tools.

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