wait_for_build

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states 'Long-running; polls until completion or timeout.' Annotations only declare readOnlyHint true, so description fills gap about polling and blocking behavior. No contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with clear purpose and behavior. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Description covers core mechanism (polling, timeout) but omits info on result format, required parameter conditions (buildId vs. buildNumber+buildTypeId), and potential side effects. Given 7 parameters and no output schema, more detail could help.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline. No extra value for parameters.

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 waits for a build to reach a terminal state, with specific verbs and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_build (non-blocking status) and cancel_build (cancelling).

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 implies use when blocking until build completion, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on when to prefer this over get_build or other tools.

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