run_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: detached execution and a sentinel-based blocking wait. However it omits what happens on timeout, failure modes, auth/permission requirements, and whether output is streamed or only retrieved afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key action and the waiting behavior come first. Nothing here is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a command-execution tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition is too thin: targeting ('alias') and timeout semantics are never addressed.

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% across three parameters. The description only indirectly implies the 'command' parameter and says nothing about 'alias' (which host/session to target) or 'timeout', so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 states a specific verb and resource ('esegue un comando in tmux'), plus a distinctive behavior ('detached' and 'attende il completamento'). It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from siblings like run_command, though it never names an alternative explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 implies you use this when you need to block on completion ('attende il completamento'), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never contrasts with run_command, run_command_many, or broadcast_wait. An agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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