DebugWait

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

No structured annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: it declares read-only behavior, the bounded wait via hold_seconds, and that a user takeover surfaces as an error carrying the system's own message. It stops short of saying what is returned on timeout without a change, which matters for a waiting/polling tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the tag prefixes front-loaded; the wait semantics and error behavior come before the batch-mode constraint. Slightly comma-spliced prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only debug wait with no output schema, the description covers the wait bound, the resolution value (session state), and the error case, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the no-change/timeout return behavior is left unstated.

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% and each parameter has a description, including the detail enum and the 30-second cap on hold_seconds. The description adds only the relational point that the session state is observed after waiting up to hold_seconds, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 operation on a specific resource: it returns the state of a debug session after waiting up to hold_seconds. The debug-related tags make the domain clear, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the close sibling AmdpDebugWait, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus DebugStep, DebugGetStack, or AmdpDebugWait. The only scoping statement, 'Runs outside batch mode,' is a constraint rather than usage direction, so the agent must infer the polling role from the description alone.

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