expect_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key blocking semantics and the two termination conditions (timeout, EOF), which is meaningful for a wait tool. It does not say what happens on timeout (error vs. silent return) or whether this blocks the session, leaving the most important behavioral question unanswered.

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 action, the target, and the exit conditions are all stated up front with no redundant restatement of the name.

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 blocking wait tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the definition should at minimum state timeout units and the outcome on timeout. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict failure behavior.

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% with three parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'pattern' accepts a regex or plain text and implies the timeout behavior, but the timeout unit (seconds?) is unstated despite a default of 10, and session_id is never mentioned, so the compensation is only partial.

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: 'Wait until a regex/text pattern appears in the output.' An agent immediately knows this is a blocking wait-for-pattern tool. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the sibling assert_contains, which presumably serves a similar matching role, so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as assert_contains or capture_screen. The closest thing to routing information is the parenthetical '(or timeout/EOF)', which describes behavior rather than when to select this tool.

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