process_wait

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: a timeout does not stop the process, and the call returns exit code plus output offsets without polling. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then adds the polling alternative and timeout side effect. No words are wasted.

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 core call flow is understandable: wait, get exit code and output offsets, timeout without killing the process. However, with no output schema and several parameters undocumented, the description does not fully explain return value structure or the semantics of since_* offsets and output limits, leaving some ambiguity for advanced usage.

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 57%, covering pid, process_id, timeout_ms, and include_output; the description adds a little context with 'output offsets,' but since_stderr, since_stdout, and max_output_bytes remain unexplained. The description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters, though the main parameters are already well described in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: wait on a managed background process. It also states the two terminal conditions (exit or timeout) and explicitly contrasts itself with repeated process_status calls, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from its closest sibling.

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 clear context: use this tool when you want to block until a background process exits or a timeout expires, avoiding repeated process_status polling. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternatives like read_process_output, but the guidance is reasonably clear.

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