runsync-endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It covers synchronous wait, timeout behavior, fallback to polling, max payload (20 MB), result expiration (1 minute), and the ability to extend wait via parameter. It lacks details on error handling, permissions, or idempotency, but the key behaviors are well communicated.

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 well-structured paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, timing constraints, fallback mechanism, and parameter usage. It is concise with no wasted words, though bullet points could improve scanability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains the high-level behavior, response types (result vs. job ID), and key constraints. It covers the main aspects needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it omits error handling details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the overall timing behavior and how the wait parameter affects server-side waiting. It also places parameters like endpointId and input in the context of a synchronous job submission.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Submit a synchronous job to a Serverless endpoint') and clearly distinguishes itself by stating 'Best for tasks completing within 90 seconds' and explaining the fallback to polling, which differentiates it from asynchronous alternatives like run-endpoint.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (tasks completing within 90 seconds) and explains the behavior for longer tasks (returns job ID to poll). It mentions the wait parameter to extend server-side wait but does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like run-endpoint.

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