jev_wait

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core wait behavior, that no Jev decision is started, and the session_id requirement. However, it omits critical behavior for a polling tool: what happens on timeout (error vs. false return) and what the tool returns on success. This is a meaningful gap given the zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded. The negative qualifier and prerequisite are each given their own clause, making the description easy to parse. Slightly dense sentence structure in the first line, but economical overall.

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 wait/polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials are missing: the agent is never told what the tool returns, how it signals a timeout, or what the polling semantics are. These are exactly the things a caller needs to invoke it correctly, and the description is silent on them.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define the two core filtering parameters (`includes` and `excludes`) inline. But it does not explain the timing parameters `poll_ms` and `timeout_ms`, nor clarify the role of `session_id` beyond 'requires it'. For a five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is only partial compensation.

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 specific verb ('Wait until') plus a concrete resource ('open Chrome session accessibility text') and a precise condition (includes every string in `includes`, none in `excludes`). The clause 'Does not start a Jev decision' helps separate it from decision-triggering siblings like jev_browser_run. It is clear but stops short of fully enumerating what distinguishes it from every 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 implies when to use it (when you need to await a content condition on an open Chrome session) and gives a negative signal ('Does not start a Jev decision') plus a prerequisite ('Requires session_id'). However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, leaving sibling selection to the agent's inference.

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