octri_wait_for_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key blocking trait, but omits what happens on timeout (error vs. partial result) and any permission/rate considerations, leaving real gaps for a long-running blocking call.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the blocking behavior is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does describe the return ('final per-language result'), but leaves the timeout/blocking semantics and failure behavior unexplained for a tool whose whole point is waiting.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter detail at all; build_id carries no schema description but is self-evident from its name. project_id and timeout_seconds are already documented in the schema, so the description neither helps nor harms.

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+resource: 'Block until every language of a build reaches a terminal state, then return the final per-language result.' An agent can tell this waits rather than polling, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling octri_get_build.

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 octri_trigger_build' names the sequencing alternative clearly. No when-not guidance (e.g. don't call when you already have a finished build_id), so it stops short of full routing.

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