code_workspace_wait_for_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It states it waits and returns status but does not explicitly mention that it polls periodically, that the timeout_seconds parameter causes it to stop waiting, or what happens if the run is not found. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, the description does not address error handling, prerequisites (e.g., must have an active run), or the polling behavior in detail. Given the four parameters and the need to understand the waiting mechanism, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only adds meaning for run_id (default behavior), but workspace_id, timeout_seconds, and poll_interval_seconds are not explained. The description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it waits for a coding run to finish and returns its status. The verb 'wait' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like code_workspace_get_run (non-blocking retrieval) and code_workspace_cancel_run (cancellation).

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 provides usage guidance by explaining that omitting run_id waits for the current active run. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like polling with get_run.

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