Wait for console text (Zenix)

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

Annotations already cover the safe/read-only profile, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the match is performed on the Amiga side so nothing crosses the network meanwhile, and it fails after 'timeout' seconds rather than hanging. It does not say what a successful answer contains, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the platform restriction that matters most, then the match semantics, then the failure mode. No filler, though the phrasing 'The Amiga watches, so nothing crosses the network meanwhile' is slightly awkward.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back on a match (the matched line, a capture, an empty success). 'Answers when a line matches' is too vague for a tool whose entire purpose is returning a match result.

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 100%, so console numbering, pattern and timeout are already documented with defaults. The description adds one genuine clarification — that the pattern is an extended regular expression — which is useful but does not go beyond that single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('wait until a line of the console matches a pattern') and pins the scope to Zenix only, not AmigaOS. The regex hint and 'login:' example make it immediately distinguishable from a generic wait like amiga_wait.

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?

Gives clear context for use (waiting for a console prompt on Zenix) and an explicit platform exclusion. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling such as amiga_wait or amiga_text and when those would be preferred instead, so routing between wait-style tools is left to inference.

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