cutbolt_job_wait

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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency, so the description usefully adds the blocking-wait semantics, the timeout default (30) and ceiling (120) that the schema omits, and that a timeout yields finished=false. It stops short of stating timeout/failure edge cases beyond that, but the added behavioral context is real.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary single-job behavior before branching into the multi-job case. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so — it describes the per-job receipt, error or progress and status counts. save_as and job_root are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap for an otherwise dense definition.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond it: it supplies the timeout default of 30, explains the multi-job until=all/any switch, and clarifies that receipts are summaries unless detail=full — detail the truncated schema text does not complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource — wait for a queued/running job to finish — and spells out what comes back (status, progress, result, finished flag). It contrasts behaviorally with a snapshot tool like cutbolt_job_status by describing the blocking wait, but never names a sibling 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?

It clearly explains the two usage modes (single job_id vs job_ids with until=all/any), which is solid implied guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over cutbolt_job_status or when not to block, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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