[Read] Wait for a build or build upload to finish processing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, polling at intervals, timeout handling, terminal states (VALID/COMPLETE vs FAILED/INVALID), and the exact return value categories (SUCCESS, FAILED, TIMEOUT, CANCELLED) plus additional payload details. This is unusually complete.

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 two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the read-only, polling nature, then provides terminal states and return details without any redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: input contract, mutually exclusive parameters, timeout and interval behavior, terminal states, and return value meaning are all covered. It gives an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the critical mutual-exclusivity requirement ('Give exactly one of buildId or buildUploadId') and connects timeout and pollIntervalSeconds to the polling behavior, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'Read-only (polls, doesn't change anything)' and states it waits for a build or build upload to reach a terminal state. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like asc_build_status by emphasizing the polling/waiting behavior and terminal-state detection.

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 provides clear context: use when you need to wait for processing to finish, with an explicit instruction to pass exactly one of buildId or buildUploadId. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a one-shot status check).

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