debug.wait_for_class

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'waits', implying blocking, and the timeout parameter is documented in the schema. However, it does not explain what happens after the wait (e.g., return value, error behavior, or impact on breakpoints). Adding such details would improve transparency.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and then provides usage context. Every sentence adds value, achieving high conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a blocking wait with two parameters and no output schema), the description covers basic purpose and usage trigger. However, it is incomplete regarding post-wait outcomes (e.g., does it return a boolean? set breakpoint automatically?). Additional details would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 50% (only class_pattern has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters; it neither explains class_pattern format nor the timeout_ms purpose. Without this, the agent must rely solely on the sparse schema example for class_pattern and infer timeout semantics from the type.

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 a class to be loaded by the JVM.' It also provides a specific usage scenario ('Use when set_breakpoint says class not found'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_class or wait_for_event.

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 tells when to use this tool: when set_breakpoint says class not found. This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though the condition is specific enough to guide correct invocation.

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