Watch a workflow run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the call blocks until the run finishes and returns the failing log on failure. It does not say what happens on timeout or how waitSeconds bounds the wait.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the failure-output detail appended rather than buried. Nothing extraneous, though the parenthetical default is redundant with the schema.

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 no-output-schema, four-parameter tool this covers the essential promise (block until done, report result, include failing log). It leaves open what happens when the wait expires and whether it observes an already-running run or triggers one, which an agent needs to reason about before calling.

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 only 50% (workflow has a default but no description, waitSeconds has no description at all). The description restates the release.yml default already present in the schema and says nothing about dir, ref, or waitSeconds, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: wait for the latest run of a workflow and report its result. An agent can distinguish it from run_checks, job_status, or add_workflows. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when a non-blocking status check is wanted.

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 word 'Wait' implies this is a blocking/poll-until-done call, typically after a workflow has been triggered, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative such as job_status is named for agents that want a non-blocking check.

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