await_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that execution is blocked until a condition is met, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not mention timeout/error behavior, but the schema provides the timeout_seconds parameter. The example further clarifies the expected usage.

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 concise sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value: it states the core behavior, gives a use case, and demonstrates usage. No redundant information.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, a use case, and an example. It doesn't explain return values on success/failure or timeout behavior, but the schema covers the timing parameters. This is sufficiently complete for a straightforward blocking wait operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example (path and contains), illustrating how the parameters work together, and reinforcing that 'contains' is optional.

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' and clearly identifies the resource (file) and condition (exists/contains string). It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tools await_command and await_url by focusing on file-based waiting.

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?

It explicitly states 'Useful for file-based signaling between processes (e.g., build status files)' giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the resource-specific focus makes the intended use obvious.

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