wait_for_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it excels. It discloses durability semantics (client-side timeout does not cancel the job), describes return content (state, exit code, bounded logs, Artifacts), and implies idempotent re-invocation, providing rich behavioral context beyond what any annotation would offer.

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 sentences, 67 words, each earning its place: purpose, return values, failure semantics, and usage guidance are all covered without a single wasted word. The description is front-loaded with the core action and follows with critical behavioral details.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool, given the 2-parameter schema and presence of an output schema. It covers return values, timeout behavior, retry semantics, and clearly differentiates from the most likely sibling alternative (wait_for_completions), fully addressing the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to both parameters: job_id is implied to be a known, reusable identifier, and timeout_seconds is contextualized as client-side ('A client-side timeout or disconnect does not cancel the Job'). However, it doesn't specify timeout_seconds value ranges or defaults, and parameter-specific details are inferred rather than explicit, keeping it from a 5.

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 opening sentence 'Wait once for a known job_id and consume its durable terminal result' provides a specific verb+resource with scope. It distinguishes from the sibling wait_for_completions by emphasizing single-job collection, making the purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('Do not use it to start work, do not poll it repeatedly'), names a direct alternative ('use wait_for_completions instead when collecting several independent Jobs'), and clarifies retry behavior on timeout ('call this tool again later with the same job_id'). This is textbook-grade usage guidance.

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