get_build_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is non-blocking and returns a state or final result, but it does not explain poll behavior, what happens before completion, possible states, error behavior, or whether the result is one-time or repeatable.

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 a single tight sentence with no redundant phrasing and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter that lacks semantic explanation. The description does not explain return values, possible states, id meaning, or how this differs from the sibling tools, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 adds no meaning about the 'id' parameter. The schema only says it is a UUID; the tool description never clarifies whether the id identifies a wait, a build, or some other entity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a resource ('state or final result of a non-blocking build wait'). It is understandable on its own, but 'state or final result' is somewhat ambiguous and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_build_status or get_build.

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?

The phrase 'non-blocking build wait' implies it relates to start_build_wait and contrasts with await_build, but the description never says when to use this tool versus get_build_status, get_build, or await_build. No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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