herdr_agent_wait

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the blocking nature and the statuses being waited on, but it omits important behavioral details such as timeout behavior, whether it returns immediately if already in the target status, or what the return value looks like.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the behavior and lists statuses; the second sentence gives practical usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple, all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the core behavior and usage alternative. The only notable gap is the lack of timeout/return-value detail, but this is a minor omission for a blocking wait primitive without an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions statuses inline but does not explain timeout defaults or the target/pane id format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Block') plus a resource ('agent') and explicitly enumerates the target statuses. It also distinguishes itself from the polling alternative by name, making its purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like herdr_agent_get.

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 clearly positions this as an 'Alternative to polling agent.get in a loop,' giving explicit context for when to use it instead of a polling loop. It does not list exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the alternative reference provides strong practical guidance.

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