dev_pipeline_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the 30s ceiling and, crucially, that 'tasks continue if this request disconnects' — a server-side async behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Two efficient clauses with the behavioral payoff (wait scope, revision hint, disconnect safety) front-loaded and no filler. Slightly compressed to the point of omitting needed detail, but structurally sound.

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?

With no output schema, 5 params at 0% coverage, and a timing-sensitive tool, the description should clarify what is returned on timeout vs. completion and the role of the device params. It conveys the wait semantics well but leaves the parameter surface and timeout outcome underspecified.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only addresses two of five params indirectly (the '30s' cap maps to waitMs, 'last revision' maps to afterRevision). runId, deviceId, and deviceName are left entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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' on a dev pipeline revision/completion) and its scoping behavior ('up to 30s'). An agent can tell it is a long-poll wait tool, but the description never names the sibling it complements (dev_pipeline_status) or contrasts with wait_until, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives conditional guidance for one parameter ('supply last revision to avoid polling unchanged state'), which implies usage, but never states when to prefer this over dev_pipeline_status or wait_until, nor any prerequisites for calling it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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