start_build_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions non-blocking. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether a wait handle is created, how to retrieve the result later, or what happens if no completed version appears.

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 sentence with no filler, but the phrase 'after afterVersion' is awkward and potentially confusing. It is concise but not as polished or clear as it could be.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important operational details: timeout semantics, expected return value, and how the non-blocking wait is later consumed. An agent would likely need additional tool definitions or trial-and-error to use it confidently.

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 description gives meaning to afterVersion by explaining that the wait is for the first completed version after that version. However, timeoutMs is completely ignored, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing 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?

The description clearly states a specific action: starting a non-blocking wait for the first completed version after a given version. The 'non-blocking' qualifier helps distinguish it from likely blocking alternatives like await_build, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 'non-blocking' wording implies when to use this tool (when you don't want to block on a build wait), but it gives no explicit guidance on how it relates to siblings like await_build or get_build_wait. Usage context is only implied, not clearly spelled out.

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