pir_wait_for_stillness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it explains blocking, the condition for success, timeout behavior, and the 'still=true' alarm state. It does not describe the full return shape or whether the operation is read-only, 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable interpretive guidance about short versus long windows.

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 core semantics are covered, but with no output schema and six parameters, the description leaves gaps: the meaning of 'name' is unclear, and the exact return value on timeout versus success is only hinted at through 'still=true'. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema covers 5 of 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing threshold and still_for_ms; notably, the required 'name' parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 behavior: block until consecutive samples stay below threshold for still_for_ms or timeout_ms. It clearly identifies the tool as a stillness/change-frozen detector, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling pir_wait_for_change.

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 practical guidance: a short window means the page has settled and is safe to act, while a long window on something that should keep changing indicates frozen content. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions, but the intended use cases are clear.

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