rsc_wait_for_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description goes further by disclosing blocking behavior, the timeout default of 300s, poll interval defaults, and the fact that a timeout can return a timed_out result rather than failing. It also enumerates the status value vocabularies per backend. It does not cover rate limits or what happens if the job never completes, so not a full 5.

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?

Purpose and required-argument retrieval are front-loaded, and the format is clearly sectioned. However, the embedded Bash/Monitor command block for the monitoring alternative is lengthy relative to the tool's own contract, adding tangential detail that dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return structure (status, progress, done, raw, optional timed_out) and mapping status value sets to each backend. Combined with the argument sourcing guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 carries full burden and does so for all five parameters. It explains that job_id means different things per workload (AsyncRequestStatus id vs taskchainUuid), that object_type selects the status query, that cluster_id is required only for CDM, and gives units/defaults for timeout and poll_interval.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with its full scope: 'Poll an RSC job until it completes and return the final status.' It also distinguishes itself from async siblings by stating it handles all job types automatically based on objectType.

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?

It gives explicit instructions for obtaining job_id and cluster_id, split by workload class (CDM vs cloud-native), and names a concrete alternative path for non-blocking use (rubrik-job-monitor via Bash/Monitor). An agent knows exactly when to use this tool and when to use the alternative.

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