terminal.wait_for_text

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema. It only states the basic waiting behavior and does not mention timeout handling, polling behavior, error conditions, or return values. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the description adds no additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and purpose, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description lacks information about return values, timeout behavior, and differentiation from sibling tools like terminal.wait_stable. Given the tool's complexity (waiting operation with multiple parameters), more context is needed for complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the regex parameter but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for sessionId, timeoutMs, or caseSensitive. It adds no new semantic information.

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 tool's action ('wait until terminal screen contains text') and specifies the regex option. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from similar tools like terminal.find (search without waiting) and terminal.wait_stable (wait for screen stability).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as terminal.find or terminal.wait_stable. It lacks context for decision-making, such as prerequisites or scenarios where regex usage is appropriate.

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