cursor_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the server-side polling model, the timeout clamp to 5 minutes, timeout recovery behavior, truncation signaled via truncated=true, and retry-with-backoff on 429/5xx. It omits whether the call blocks the agent for the full timeout window and any sensitivity/permission considerations, but the operational profile is unusually well documented.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then tight clauses for timeout, fallback, truncation, and retries. Every sentence carries an actionable fact; the line wrapping is cosmetic and no content is wasted.

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, so the description appropriately covers the return surface (the run's result, plus truncated=true when large). Combined with the timeout and retry details, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though parameter-level detail on agent_id/run_id is thin.

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 explains timeout_s well (clamped to 5 min) and implies run_id identifies the run for subsequent cursor_status polling, but agent_id and the concrete run_id semantics are never described. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 resource ('Wait for a run to finish... and return its result') and explicitly positions itself against a sibling ('Convenience wrapper over cursor_status for when you just want the final answer'). An agent can distinguish it from cursor_status without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the condition for choosing this tool ('when you just want the final answer'), names the alternative (cursor_status), and even prescribes the fallback path on timeout ('keep polling with cursor_status using the returned run_id'). Nothing about selection 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.