agy_run_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions event waiting and condition values but does not explain blocking behavior, timeout handling, error scenarios, or whether it is destructive. This is insufficient for a waiting tool.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides key details about run_ids and conditions. No unnecessary text, though more structure could improve readability.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks sufficient context to fully differentiate from siblings like agy_run_observe or agy_run_result. The condition aliases are helpful but overall completeness is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains run_ids (always a list) and lists condition values, but does not describe the 'after' parameter or timeout_seconds beyond default. Only partial parameter guidance is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for sparse Run events instead of repeatedly polling status.' It differentiates from polling tools and siblings like agy_run_cancel or agy_run_result by focusing on event-driven waiting.

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 suggests using this tool to avoid polling but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lists condition aliases, which helps, but no mention of alternatives like agy_run_observe.

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