wait_for_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing that the call blocks, that it can return due to timeout, and that it returns immediately if the inferior is already stopped. It stops short of explaining what the caller receives on timeout or whether it raises an error, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the blocking wait, stop conditions, timeout, and the already-stopped shortcut with no wasted 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 tool is simple, but the description still leaves out the behavior on timeout (return value vs. exception) and the role of session_id. Without an output schema or annotations, these details matter for an agent to know what to expect after invoking the tool.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining session_id or timeout_ms. While the parameter names and the 'Timeout Ms' title are somewhat self-evident, the description omits important semantics such as what a null session_id means and what happens when timeout_ms elapses. This is a clear gap at this coverage level.

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 states a precise verb-resource pair ('Wait until the inferior stops') and enumerates the exact stop causes: signal, breakpoint, or exit. It also distinguishes itself from related operations by noting the immediate-return behavior when already stopped, so an agent can tell it apart from interrupt or get_stop_reason.

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 makes the core use case clear: block until the inferior stops or a timeout elapses. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like polling session_status or inspecting get_stop_reason, nor does it mention that it is typically called after continue_execution or interrupt.

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