Instrument Wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool blocks (synchronous) and that it either completes when capture finishes or times out after timeout_s. This covers the core behavioral trait. However, it does not state what happens on timeout (e.g., error, return value), which remains a minor gap given the 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?

One sentence, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. The conditional phrase 'or timeout_s' efficiently captures the entire behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with a single parameter and an output schema (though not shown). The description covers the essential behavior and parameter sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly in a typical flow. A minor omission is not stating what the return value is or timeout handling, but that may be addressed by the output schema. Overall, adequate.

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 compensate. It explicitly mentions 'timeout_s' and ties it to the wait duration, adding meaning beyond the bare name and default. However, it does not elaborate on units (though the suffix 's' implies seconds) or edge cases (e.g., negative values). The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 specific verb ('Block') and a clear resource ('capture') with a precise condition ('completes or timeout_s'). This distinguishes it from siblings like instrument_start or instrument_stop, which initiate or terminate actions, whereas this is a waiting operation. The purpose 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should follow instrument_start or instrument_capture, nor does it suggest any exclusion scenarios. Context must be inferred from the name and siblings, but no explicit direction is provided.

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