serial_wait_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool waits for a pattern and has a timeout default, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it blocks execution, what happens on timeout (e.g., error or return), if it consumes output, or any side effects. For a tool that interacts with serial connections, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving serial I/O and pattern waiting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual details: behavioral traits (e.g., blocking nature, error handling), output format, and how it integrates with siblings like serial_connect. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (connection_id, pattern, timeout). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as pattern matching details or timeout implications. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Wait for a specific string/pattern in serial output.' It specifies the verb ('wait for') and resource ('serial output'), and distinguishes it from siblings like serial_read or serial_expect by focusing on waiting for patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from serial_expect (which might have similar functionality), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage context with 'Useful for boot messages, prompts,' suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like serial_expect or serial_read, and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active connection from serial_connect). This leaves gaps in usage differentiation.

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