wait_for_stop

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it does not resume the target and yields either a structured stop event or a timeout. It stops short of explaining what conditions trigger a stop or whether the call blocks.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the critical non-resuming constraint placed first and zero wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the two outcomes (structured stop event or timeout). For a 2-param, fully annotated, all-optional tool this is nearly complete, though the exact stop-event shape remains unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented (session and timeout_sec). The description adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema's own '(default 10)' and 'Omit for the default target', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (waits) and resource (next stop event), and the key differentiator 'WITHOUT resuming the target' separates it from resuming siblings like continue_execution or run_and_wait. It does not name a specific sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'WITHOUT resuming the target' implies when this tool is appropriate (observing a stop without advancing execution), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many run/step siblings.

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