dsh_wait

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's task is lighter here. It adds useful behavior not present in the annotations: the operation is time-bounded to 30 seconds and will not keep waiting until a task completes. It also describes the event categories that trigger a return, which a caller otherwise could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 very efficient: one sentence states the core behavior and timeframe, and the second sentence narrows expectations with an explicit negative. The wording is front-loaded so the agent sees the crucial limitations immediately. There is no filler or repetition of available structured metadata.

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 simple, read-only, idempotent wait tool with three flat parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main gaps: bounding timeout, trigger conditions, and non-completion behavior. The only shortfall is that it does not say what the tool returns when a timeout or event occurs, but this is largely inferable from a wait tool with a cursor parameter.

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, but it only partially does. 'At most 30 seconds' maps clearly to timeoutSec, and 'new task cursor' hints at sinceCursor, but taskId is not explicitly described and the cursor mechanics remain vague. The parameter names and schemas are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not fully replace the missing per-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 the specific operation: wait at most 30 seconds for a new cursor, status/availability change, terminal state, or pending interaction. It does not just repeat the tool name and it explicitly bounds what it is not doing by saying it never waits for whole-task completion. It avoids naming a sibling tool, but the event categories are precise enough to separate it from status, tail, and observe tools.

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 description gives a clear when-to-use context: when the agent needs to wait for cursors, state changes, terminal states, or pending interactions. The phrase 'It never waits for whole-task completion' is an explicit exclusion that prevents misuse. It does not point to a specific alternative tool, but the intended use is reasonably delineated.

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