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 burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool blocks until the workflow finishes, mentions first-deploy duration, and clarifies that a missing conclusion means timeout and that calling again is appropriate. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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, all with value. The core action is first, usage conditions follow, and timeout behavior is last. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: purpose, when to call, expected duration, and retry behavior. It could add an explicit note about the timeout_seconds parameter, but the missing pieces are minor and the description is largely complete.

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 should compensate. It indirectly explains timeout behavior through the 'ran out of time' sentence, which gives meaning to timeout_seconds, and repo is inferable from context. However, neither parameter is named or explicitly mapped, so the compensation is partial.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: wait for the Mockzilla workflow run to finish and return the live mock URL. It also differentiates from the sibling wait_for_deploy by scoping to the Mockzilla GitHub workflow, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call: after publish_to_github or after the user pushes. It also gives retry guidance for the no-conclusion case. It does not explicitly contrast with wait_for_deploy, but the timing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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