await_build

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the tool waits for a build result but does not explain blocking behavior, timeout handling, polling mechanics, or what happens if no version after afterVersion completes.

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 a single terse sentence with no fluff. However, 'after afterVersion' is slightly awkward and repetitive, though it does not materially hurt clarity.

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 blocking/waiting operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical details: what the return value looks like, timeout/error behavior, and how this relates to sibling wait/status tools. An agent could invoke it but would not know what result to expect.

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 50%: afterVersion has a schema description, timeoutMs only has default/min/max. The description adds relational meaning to afterVersion ('first completed version after...') but does not explain how timeoutMs affects the wait or what it measures.

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 states a specific action ('Await'), a resource ('build result'), and a selection rule ('first completed version after afterVersion'). It is clear about the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling wait/status tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_build_wait, start_build_wait, get_build_status, or get_build. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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