wait_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: default 60s wait, an upper bound of 300s gated on client timeout, the after_revision mechanism for suppressing stale completions, and the important fact that cancellation stops the wait but not the workers. It still omits what a returned completion looks like and whether the call blocks the session.

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?

Four tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The timeout sentence is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic ("only when the client request timeout exceeds wait_ms"), costing a little clarity for brevity.

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?

For a blocking wait tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the definition is only partially complete. It never says what the wait resolves to on completion versus change, nor how a caller should interpret a timeout expiry.

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 for all four parameters. It explains wait_ms bounds and the purpose of after_revision well, but wake_on's enum values (completion vs change) are never differentiated in prose and workflow_id is unexplained.

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: an event-driven wait on an entire workflow. It distinguishes from the status-polling siblings (get_workflow_status, get_job_status) implicitly by describing a blocking wait, though it 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?

"Reuse after_revision to suppress old completions" and "up to 300s only when the client request timeout exceeds wait_ms" give conditional context for parameter use, but there is no statement of when to choose this over get_workflow_status or cancel_job, and no explicit when-not guidance.

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