glass_wait_for_log

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

Discloses blocking semantics, timeout behavior returning {matched:false}, the exact return shape, cursor semantics, and the default time window. Annotations mark this as readOnly and non-open-world, and the description adds timing and continuation behavior without contradiction.

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 four sentences, dense and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes essential behavior, and the detailed return-shape note is warranted because no output schema exists. It is slightly longer than minimal but not wasteful.

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 blocking timeout tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values, timeout behavior, and cursor continuation. All 5 parameters are documented in the schema, and optional poll/default settings are present. Minor gaps like explicit error cases do not undermine usability.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that cursor from glass_logs can catch a pre-existing line, explains the resume behavior, and highlights stream optionality. This exceeds the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Block until...'), resource ('log line'), and conditions ('contains', optional 'stream'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like glass_logs by emphasizing wait-until behavior and from other wait_* tools by focusing on logs and cursor semantics.

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?

Description gives practical context: default behavior matches only new lines, pass a cursor from glass_logs to catch an earlier line, and resume from returned cursor. It references glass_logs explicitly, implying a usage sequence, but does not state explicit when-not-to-use or name alternative tools beyond glass_logs.

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