wait_for_github_deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reads the workflow log, waits for completion, and returns the URL; it also explains the timeout symptom ('returns with no conclusion') and tells the agent to call again. It does not cover auth or failure modes, but the core polling/log-reading behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, and the description avoids filler while efficiently conveying sequencing, timing, and retry behavior.

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 description covers the main orchestration context: when to call, how long to expect, what it returns, and what to do on timeout. It is slightly incomplete on the required repo argument and precise failure behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it provides enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and the description never mentions repo or timeout_seconds. The retry/timeout prose only indirectly relates to timeout_seconds, and repo is left entirely to inference from the tool name and GitHub context, so the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 operation: wait for the Mockzilla workflow run to finish and return the live mock URL from the run log. The wording clearly identifies the GitHub/Mockzilla deployment context, making it easy to tell apart from sibling deploy and wait tools, though it never explicitly names wait_for_deploy as the competing alternative.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call after publish_to_github, or after the user pushes' and explains the expected timing with 'A first deploy takes a minute or two.' It also provides a retry instruction for timeout cases, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as wait_for_deploy.

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