wait_for_device

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the call blocks rather than returning immediately. However, it never says what happens on timeout (error, exception, or a success/failure return) or which device is targeted when serial is omitted, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior and scoped by the timeout parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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, and the tool is simple. Still, for a blocking call with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the timeout outcome and default-device fallback are gaps an agent would need.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: 'timeout' is only alluded to in passing with no units, and 'serial' is never mentioned. It also doesn't state that omitting serial falls back to the default device, which is the most important semantic for this parameter.

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 outcome ('Block until the device is online') with the timeout escape hatch, which cleanly distinguishes it from the immediate-return siblings get_devices and get_state. It does not name those siblings, so it stops 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?

'Useful after reboot/connect' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to the sibling tools reboot and connect. It provides clear positive context but no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. that it is redundant before a call that already blocks).

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