Wait For Webhound Session

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

Discloses that it is non-destructive, idempotent (returning still_running is normal and can be retried), and warns against finalizing sessions. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, and description adds context about budgeted research and alert handling. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficiently conveys key usage constraints, though missing param documentation could be considered a gap rather than conciseness.

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?

Does not describe all possible return statuses (only mentions still_running and awaits_input/alert). Output schema exists but is not leveraged. Missing details about what triggers terminal vs non-terminal outcomes beyond the timeout.

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 0%, but description does not explain any parameter. Only 'max 110 seconds' implicitly relates to max_wait_seconds. No explanation of session_id or poll_interval_seconds meaning or constraints.

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?

Clearly states it is a 'bounded wait wrapper around webhound_watch' with a max time of 110 seconds, and specifies the 'still_running' return. Differentiates from sibling watch by indicating it is a wrapper with a timeout.

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 explicit guidance: 'still_running is normal for budgeted research; call wait/watch again unless status is awaiting_input or a blocking alert is present. Do not finalize or stop a healthy running session.' Could elaborate on when to use wait vs watch directly.

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