Wait for Telnet screen text

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

The annotations already mark it read-only and open-world; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it polls the real console, performs literal matching, and resolves on timeout. This is useful context for an agent deciding whether to call it and what to expect.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('real console screen', 'literal text', 'timeout expires') adds a distinct piece of 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 six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits the meaning of rows and pollMs, the case-sensitivity default, and what happens on timeout.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate, but it only loosely covers 'text' and 'timeout'. It does not explain sessionId, rows, pollMs, or caseSensitive beyond what their names and defaults suggest, leaving ambiguity around rows and polling behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Polls the real console screen') and clarifies that the operation is a blocking wait for literal text or timeout. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like telnet_check or telnet_read.

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 conveys that the tool waits/polls, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling telnet_check, telnet_read, or telnet_send tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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