wait_for_claude_turn

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mechanism (local session-log completion and terminal state) but does not describe side effects, timeout behavior, or whether it blocks indefinitely. It also does not state if it is safe to call multiple times or if it modifies any state.

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 followed by a brief directive. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core function and a key usage detail.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain key parameters (e.g., lines, timeoutSeconds), nor does it describe what the tool returns or whether it throws errors on timeout. This leaves significant gaps for an agent invoking the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only waitAfterCursor has a description). The description adds meaning only for waitAfterCursor ('Pass submit_prompt.waitAfterCursor verbatim'), while other parameters like lines, pollIntervalMs, timeoutSeconds, and managedSession rely solely on their names and defaults, which are insufficient for correct use.

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') and resource ('Claude's current turn') and details the mechanism ('record-ordered local session-log completion and terminal state'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_text, submit_prompt, and capture_remote_control, which perform different operations.

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 instruction 'Pass submit_prompt.waitAfterCursor verbatim' implies it should be used after submitting a prompt, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as capture_remote_control, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback scenarios.

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