Check login approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose real behavior: bounded polling via waitSeconds and a persistent side effect (the token is stored for this machine and shared with the CLI). It omits timeout/failure outcomes and whether the stored token expires, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action and its dependency on buildtree_login are front-loaded, and the retry instruction closes the loop.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey the possible result states; it hints at "pending" but never describes the approved/failed outcomes or what the stored token looks like. Combined with the undocumented required parameter, the definition is workable but leaves real gaps.

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 compensate for both parameters. It explains waitSeconds semantically (bounded polling window) but says nothing about pairId, the required opaque 16-64 character identifier, not even that it comes from buildtree_login's response.

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 action (wait for/poll a login approval) on a specific resource and explicitly ties itself to the sibling buildtree_login that starts the flow. An agent can tell this apart from the other buildtree_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

It names the predecessor tool that must run first and gives an explicit retry protocol ("Call again while it reports pending"), which is exactly the operational guidance an agent needs. It does not state when not to call it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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