wait_for_output

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: waiting, timeout, returns accumulated output or error/timeout. It could add more about blocking behavior or process termination handling.

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 and front-loaded, with a clear purpose and structured args/returns. Every sentence is essential, no waste.

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 3 params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and returns (captured output or error/timeout). Could include more on edge cases but sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully carries the burden. It explains pid (process ID from start_program), pattern (text to wait for), and timeout (max wait in seconds), adding meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Wait' and the resource 'until a specific text pattern appears in the output', which is distinct from sibling tools like read_output (reads without waiting) and is_alive (checks process status).

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 for waiting on pattern appearance but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., read_output, is_alive) or prerequisites like needing a started process.

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