emergent_wait_for_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden: it discloses that the tool polls, blocks until completion, and can fail or time out. This informs the agent that the operation is not instantaneous and may be long-running.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the usage context second. Every phrase contributes necessary information and there is no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter polling tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the failure/timeout behavior. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap since the description doesn't describe the return payload, but the core call context is complete.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully (jobId and timeoutMinutes) with 100% coverage. The description adds only minimal context about job/build semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a job until it completes (or fails/times out)' and clearly identifies the target as a build job. It is distinct from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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?

'Use after emergent_create_project to wait for the build to finish' provides explicit contextual usage guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative polling tools, but the intended placement in the workflow is clear.

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