wait_for_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it clearly discloses that the tool blocks and polls until success or timeout. It does not explain return values, timeout error behavior, or side effects, though the core polling behavior is transparent enough.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and termination condition, with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what the tool returns, what happens on timeout, the units of timeout, and any prerequisite (e.g., where queue_url comes from). These are material gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 parameter meaning. It only echoes 'queue URL' and 'timeout' without adding units, format, or timeout semantics, leaving the agent to guess details like whether timeout is seconds.

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 states a specific action: block-polling a queue URL until a build number is assigned or a timeout occurs. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and termination condition, and separates it from sibling get/list/trigger tools.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you need to wait for a build number rather than manually polling a queue. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what alternative to choose instead, or how the queue URL should be obtained.

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