rad_wait_for_stop

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the wait is bounded by a timeout and 'Timeout does not cancel execution', which is crucial for an agent to avoid assuming the target was aborted. It omits what a stop result contains, but an output schema exists.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the important non-cancellation caveat. The final sentence about the baseline is efficient in size but opaque in meaning, so it earns only partial credit.

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 explained, and the non-cancellation caveat is a strong addition. But the timeout figure contradicts the schema default and the baseline/after_run_gen semantics are unexplained, leaving an agent uncertain about the parameters that distinguish this call.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails: it mentions a timeout but gives a value (60s) inconsistent with the schema default of 10, and the baseline sentence only vaguely gestures at after_run_gen/after_stop_count without explaining their meaning. session_id is entirely unaddressed.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Wait ... for a NEW stop/exit', making the debugger-blocking behavior clear and distinguishable from siblings like rad_continue or rad_get_state. However, the hard-coded '60 seconds' conflicts with the schema's timeout default of 10, slightly muddying the stated scope.

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 'NEW stop/exit' and 'execution baseline' implies it is used after resuming execution (rad_continue) to await the next break or exit, but the description never states this explicitly nor names alternatives like polling rad_get_state. Usage is inferable from context rather than spelled out.

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