wait_agent

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the waiting behavior, the default state set, and the critical timeout-failure behavior. It does not say whether it is polling, blocking, or what side effects it has, but for a wait primitive the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 only three short bullet-style lines, and each line contributes critical parameter semantics. The core behavior is first, followed by the three parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse in one pass.

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 is a simple wait primitive, an output schema exists, and the description covers all needed behavioral and state information: target identity, acceptable states, defaults, and timeout failure. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing, aside from forwarding to wait_for_output, which is handled more in usage guidance.

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 schema provides only parameter names, types, and defaults, with no descriptions, while schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining target as-Id or agent name, the allowed until values with a default, and the meaning of timeout_ms. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Wait') and resource ('an agent reaches one of the requested states'), and distinguishes itself from wait_for_output because it targets agent state, not command output. Including a small state vocabulary makes the resource 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 usage context is implied through 'target' being an agent or agent pane and 'until' being an agent status, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus wait_for_output or another sibling. It is sufficient for an agent to infer the likely usage, yet it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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