Wait for a workspace job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it polls, exits on done/error/timeout, and returns the final status plus a stage trail. This gives the agent a good sense of observable behavior without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then states the termination conditions and the return value. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or annotation information.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the core behavior and return value. The main gap is the lack of explicit notes on timeout/error handling, but the mention of 'timeout passes' and 'done or errored' is sufficient for correct invocation in most 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining the polling behavior and timeout condition, which maps to timeout_s and poll_s by name. However, it does not explicitly define the units or semantics of poll_s, nor clarify that job_id identifies the target job, so the compensation is incomplete.

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') and resource ('an ingest/export job') and clearly defines the terminal conditions: 'done or errored (or the timeout passes)'. This differentiates it from the sibling workspace_job_status, which is a status check rather than a blocking wait.

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 conveys the intended use case: wait for a job to reach a terminal state. It does not explicitly name alternatives like workspace_job_status or scene_job_wait, but the polling/blocking behavior makes the context clear. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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