wait_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool waits using *OPC? and that *WAI is a compatibility no-op on this firmware, but it does not explain timeout behavior or what happens if the operation times out.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds useful context about *OPC? and *WAI. It is appropriately sized for a simple blocking helper tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the main blocking behavior and use_wai, but it omits timeout semantics and usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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% for two parameters. The description explains use_wai and its effect, which adds real meaning, but it says nothing about the timeout parameter, leaving half the parameter semantics undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource: block until all pending operations finish via *OPC?. It is specific and an agent can understand its synchronization role. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as scpi, but the purpose itself is 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 description implies usage by saying it blocks until pending operations finish, and it explains the optional use_wai flag. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus scpi or other synchronization approaches, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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