read

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking/waiting behavior and that output is returned, but does not mention timeouts, failure modes, or what happens if a session never finishes. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is stated first, and the parallel-waiting guidance is added in the second sentence.

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 read-style tool with simple parameters and no output schema, this is mostly complete. It states what the tool returns and how to wait. Minor gaps around error handling and timeout behavior prevent a 5.

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% and both parameters are described. The description adds a slight preference for 'names' in parallel scenarios, but that is already implied by the schema's 'preferred for multiple sessions' note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('wait for Claude sessions to finish working') and the result ('return their terminal output'). It is specific and distinct from siblings like spawn, send, kill, and list.

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 an explicit usage preference: 'Use \'names\' for parallel waiting on multiple sessions.' It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling set is clear enough that no confusion is likely.

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