orca_terminal_waitWait for a terminal to exit or its agent TUI to go idle, with each call capped at 55 seconds; call again to continue waiting.
Wait until a terminal exits or its agent TUI goes idle (turn finished). Each call waits at most 55 s; call again to keep waiting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| for | Yes | ||
| terminal | Yes | Terminal handle such as term_..., from orca_terminal_list. | |
| timeoutMs | No | Default 45000. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the crucial behavior the schema only hints at: the wait is bounded and must be re-issued to continue, which reframes this as a polling primitive rather than a single blocking call.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The wait condition comes first and the polling constraint second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description never says what is returned — exit status, idle state, or timeout indication — which is exactly what an agent needs after waiting. For a blocking tool with an undocumented return, the definition is only minimally 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 coverage is 67% and the 'for' enum has no per-value description there, but the description explains both modes: terminal exit vs agent TUI idle (turn finished). That is genuine added meaning beyond the schema, though the terminal handle source is only in 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?
States a specific verb and resource: waits on a terminal until it exits or its agent TUI goes idle. The blocking/waiting semantics are unambiguous and intuitively distinct from read/send siblings, though no sibling is named 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?
"Each call waits at most 55 s; call again to keep waiting" gives concrete polling guidance for the common case. It does not state when to prefer this over orca_terminal_read or what to do on timeout, so exclusions/alternatives are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.