runsync-endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: synchronous submission, timeout, polling fallback, max payload, and result expiry. It omits failure handling and cancellation details, but the core workflow is transparent.

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 concise with five sentences, no redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return behavior (job ID for polling). However, it doesn't describe the success response format or handle nested parameters like s3Config, though these are in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds contextual value (e.g., wait parameter limits) but doesn't significantly enhance individual parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool submits a synchronous job and waits for a result, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run-endpoint' by emphasizing synchronous behavior and timeout handling.

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 advises when to use (tasks within 90 seconds) and how to handle longer tasks via polling or the wait parameter. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like 'run-endpoint' or 'stream-job', but the timeout guidance is clear enough.

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