Blocks until a subagent session becomes idle, finishes, or errors, or until the optional timeout expires, so callers can wait for delegated work to complete.
Legacy helper: block until the session is idle/done/error or times out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses blocking semantics and the terminal states, but says nothing about what is returned, what happens to the caller's timeout budget, or whether concurrent waits are safe.
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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the 'Legacy helper' caveat and then the effect. No filler, though there is little to structure.
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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description should explain the return shape and the required session identifier. It covers only the waiting condition, so an agent still cannot tell what it gets back.
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 only alludes to a timeout ('or times out') and never mentions session_id as a required parameter, leaving both parameters unspecified in prose.
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?
States a specific verb and effect: block until the session reaches idle/done/error or times out. That distinguishes it from non-blocking siblings like get_agent_status, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
'Legacy helper' hints that agents should prefer something else, but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. The blocking use case is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.