wait_sensor

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool waits (implying blocking) and debounces the condition, and explicitly guarantees no motor movement—a safety-relevant trait. It does not mention timeout or return/error behavior, so it is not fully transparent, but it adds meaningful 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 of eleven words, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. 'without moving a motor' is a valuable qualifier that earns its place by preventing confusion with motor-acting siblings.

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 blocking operation with six parameters, no output schema, and unhelpful all-false annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits what happens on timeout (error vs. false return), whether the wait can be interrupted, and which conditions require threshold. The single sentence is an excellent purpose statement but not complete operational guidance.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds only the notion of 'debounced', which relates to debounce_ms, but it does not explain threshold, the condition operators (lt, lte, gt, gte, eq), timeout_seconds, or sensor_type semantics. The schema enums and defaults carry nearly all parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') with a specific resource ('debounced sensor condition'), and adds the critical qualifier 'without moving a motor', which clearly distinguishes it from motor-driving siblings like run_motor_until_sensor or run_motors_until_sensor. It is a crisp, non-tautological statement that an agent can act on.

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 phrase 'without moving a motor' provides clear usage context: use this when you need to block on a sensor condition and do not want motor motion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as read_sensor for immediate single reads or run_motor_until_sensor for motor-inclusive waits, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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