wait_for_signal

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses blocking behavior, timeout semantics, return value, and the run_interactive prerequisite. It doesn't cover edge cases like missing node paths or signals already emitted, but the added context is valuable and non-contradictory.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action, the second states a use case, and the third provides return behavior and a prerequisite. 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and safe annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, return value, and prerequisite. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., missed signals) and doesn't distinguish from wait_for_node, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, though it does provide example signal names ('animation_finished', 'died') that align with schema examples. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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') and resource ('signal emitted on a node'), with a clear scope and examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_node and subscribe_signals by focusing on blocking until a signal fires.

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?

Provides clear context ('Useful for sequencing test steps') and a necessary prerequisite ('The project must be running via run_interactive'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wait_for_node or get_signal_events, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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