subagent_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include status, summaries, changed_files, etc., for audit purposes, but it does not explain blocking behavior, timeout handling, or error states. The timeout parameter is not mentioned.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose, the second details the output. No extraneous information.

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 (waiting for subagents with a timeout), the description lacks completeness. It does not address error conditions, partial results, or how to interpret outputs like 'status'. The timeout parameter is undocumented.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (targets, timeout_ms) with 0% description coverage. The description does not define what 'targets' refers to (e.g., subagent IDs) or explain the timeout parameter. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema property names.

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 verb 'Wait' and the resource 'one or more Open Subagent MCP runs'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subagent_spawn, subagent_close, subagent_rollback, and subagent_send_message, each of which has a different action.

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 implies usage after spawning subagents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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