terminal_wait

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the two termination conditions (regex match or output idleness) and the return value (collected output plus whether the pattern was found). This is useful behavioral context that the readOnlyHint alone does not provide. It does not mention timeout error handling, but the schema covers timeout bounds.

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 compact and well-structured: main behavior first, then usage examples, then a brief args/returns summary. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant fluff.

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 operation with annotations and full schema descriptions, the description covers the core behavior, common usage, and return value. It does not explicitly address timeout failure behavior, but the return format implies partial output is returned. Overall, an agent has enough context to invoke 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?

The description only lists parameter names (terminal_id, pattern, timeout, idle) without adding meaning. However, the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each property, including regex behavior and idle semantics. Since the schema carries the semantic weight, the description adds no extra value, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: wait on a terminal until a regex pattern appears or the output goes quiet. The examples (build, install, server startup) reinforce the intended operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like terminal_read, but the wait-for-condition behavior is distinct and unambiguous.

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 gives concrete use cases: long-running commands and server startup with a known readiness string. This tells an agent when to call it. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the provided context is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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