glass_wait_for_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains blocking behavior, default line selection, cursor usage for prior lines, timeout result structure, and the ability to resume from returned cursor. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each efficiently conveys essential information: main function, optional cursor behavior, return value format. No redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter usage (especially cursor), behavior (blocking, timeout), and return structure. It is self-contained and complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond schema: explains cursor role as 'from glass_logs', default behavior nuance for contains/timeout/interval, and describes return shape, raising the score to 4.

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 blocks until a log line containing 'contains' appears, and specifies optional stream and cursor parameters. It distinguishes from sibling glass_logs by mentioning cursor and blocking behavior, and explicitly references glass_logs for cursor usage.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (block for a log line) and explains the default behavior (only lines after call) and how to use cursor to include prior lines. While no explicit 'when not to use' is given, the sibling context and mention of timeout imply alternatives like glass_logs for non-blocking retrieval.

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