windbg_wait_for_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the key behavior: waits for output/prompt and does NOT break in on timeout. This is a crucial differentiation for an async debugger tool. It stops short of explaining return format or timeout side effects, but the core non-disruptive behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and followed by a direct usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the 11-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is surprisingly sufficient. It identifies the exact asynchronous workflow context and the critical timeout behavior. The rich parameter schema covers the filtering and output options. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit statement about what the tool returns (e.g., matched event lines), but the parameter names and descriptions make this inferable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter information, but all 11 parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not add usage context for the more complex filtering parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for output/prompt from an async command.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it avoids sending break-in on timeout, and references windbg_continue_async as its intended predecessor. This makes the tool's role clear.

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?

'Use after windbg_continue_async' gives a clear, explicit usage context. The comment about not sending break-in on timeout further signals when this is appropriate, though no explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' distinctions are provided.

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