wait_for_build

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it blocks for up to 30 minutes by default, and it is a 'Pro feature.' This risk of holding the session is prominent. However, it doesn't specify what happens on timeout (error vs. return) or whether partial results are returned, leaving a minor gap given there are no annotations.

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, each adding value: purpose, usage caveat with alternative, and a licensing note. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 polling tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the core behavior (blocking, duration, fallback). It lacks an explicit note about the return value or timeout behavior, but given no output schema and the simple nature of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete 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 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The mention of '30 minutes by default' aligns with max_wait_seconds, but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 tool polls until the newest uploaded build reaches VALID status, making the ship flow a single call. The verb 'poll' plus the target resource 'newest uploaded build' and the goal 'VALID' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly advises when not to use the tool ('if you should not hold the session that long') and directs the user to the alternative 'call list_builds yourself instead.' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guideline, plus a named alternative.

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