wait_for_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does this well by describing the wait semantics, the idle state when no command is pending, and the three possible return statuses with sample JSON. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether output is consumed) or timeout details beyond 'timed out again,' leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The return JSON example is useful and not overly verbose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'returns idle status' repeated), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 description covers the return format and basic usage pattern, which is helpful given the output schema exists. However, it omits key context about session_id and timeout semantics, which are essential for correct invocation. For a tool with two optional parameters and a rich return structure, the description should address these to be complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions timeout indirectly via "timed out again" but never explains that the timeout parameter controls waiting duration. It does not mention session_id at all, which is critical for multi-session scenarios. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little to their semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: "Wait for the current pending command to complete" with a specific verb (wait) and resource (pending command). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing the execute() flow and the CDB prompt, making it clear this is a polling/waiting operation.

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 explicitly says "Used after execute() returns pending, to continue waiting for command completion," providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide the agent.

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