ci_build_run_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important blocking/polling behavior and the two exit conditions (terminal status, timeout), which is real value. However, it omits what happens on timeout (error vs. returning the last non-terminal state), what counts as terminal, and how the id is resolved to a run.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core behavior and the two termination paths come first. Nothing in the sentence is redundant.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool the description is minimal but covers the essential mechanic. It still leaves an agent guessing about defaults, timeout semantics, and return shape, which are material for a long-running polling call.

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 supply parameter meaning. It only obliquely references timeout via 'timeout expires' and says nothing about pollIntervalMs, the units/defaults for timeoutMs and pollIntervalMs, or which identifier 'id' expects (a ci_build_runs id). 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?

The description gives a specific verb (poll), a precise resource (an Xcode Cloud build run), and the terminating condition (terminal completion status or timeout). This behaviorally distinguishes it from the single-fetch sibling ci_build_runs_get_instance and aligns with the sibling 'wait' pattern (analytics_report_instance_wait).

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 polling-until-terminal framing implies the usage context (wait after kicking off a build run rather than re-fetching), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no contrast with ci_build_runs_get_instance, and no guidance on when to choose this over simply polling yourself. Usage is inferable but never stated.

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