devin_await_completion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling interval (5 seconds), the timeout default and error behavior (DevinTimeoutError), the terminal states it waits for, and the return value. It's behaviorally transparent about its blocking/polling nature.

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 tightly packed with useful information: polling behavior, terminal states list, timeout semantics, error behavior, return value. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (per context signals), so return-value documentation burden is relieved. The description covers the polling cadence, terminal states, timeout behavior, and error handling. It's fairly complete for a monitor/poll tool, though it doesn't describe what 'full session details' contains.

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. It does address both parameters: session_id is described as 'The session ID to monitor' and timeout as 'Maximum seconds to wait' with default. This matches what's in the input schema (default 600), adding minimal extra meaning beyond restating schema values.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Poll a Devin session until it reaches a terminal state.' It lists the exact terminal states and distinguishes itself from siblings like devin_get_status (which presumably returns a snapshot once, not polls) and devin_run_phase. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clearly explains that this polls until terminal state, distinguishing it from a one-shot status check. It names the terminal states explicitly so an agent knows when to use this vs getting a single snapshot. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use devin_get_status instead if you only need one snapshot' as an exclusionary note.

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