herdr_pane_wait_for_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the blocking nature ('Block until') and return type ('Returns the matched output lines'), but does not explain timeout behavior (e.g., what happens if timeout_ms is exceeded), error conditions, or whether the tool consumes or clears output. This is moderate but incomplete.

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 long, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: the blocking behavior, the match criterion, the efficiency note, and the return outcome. It is ideal in size and structure.

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 has 6 parameters (including a nested match object) and no output schema, so the description must explain both usage and return. It covers the basic flow (block until match, return lines) but omits important context such as timeout behavior, how 'source' affects which buffer is watched, and what counts as 'matched output lines' across buffer types. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly in edge cases.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., match type, source, lines, timeout_ms). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond that, mainly reaffirming the matching concept ('substring or regex') and the return. Given the high coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Block until') and resource ('pane output'), and clearly identifies the triggering condition ('matches a substring or regex'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like herdr_pane_get, which return output immediately, and herdr_pane_send_input, which writes. The purpose is 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 explicitly says 'More efficient than polling,' which tells the agent to use this tool instead of repeatedly calling a read tool. However, it does not name the alternative tool (e.g., herdr_pane_get) or provide an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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