runsync-endpoint

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

Discloses key behaviors: synchronous wait, timeout response, result expiration (1 minute), max payload (20 MB), and large output via S3Config. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: false and openWorldHint: true; description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Covers workflow, timeout, polling, limits, and large outputs. However, without an output schema, it fails to describe the successful synchronous response format. Also lacks prerequisites (e.g., endpoint must be deployed). Leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the wait parameter's extension behavior and overall constraints but does not elaborate on other parameter details 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Submit a synchronous job to a Serverless endpoint') and establishes the core behavior ('wait for the result'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run-endpoint' by emphasizing synchronous vs fallback polling.

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?

Clearly states optimal use case ('Best for tasks completing within 90 seconds'), explains timeout behavior ('returns a job ID to poll with get-job-status'), and provides limits (payload, result expiration, wait parameter). Lacks explicit alternatives for longer tasks.

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