wait_for_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently conveys the blocking nature of the call, the target-state condition, and the optional stability-window requirement. The schema complements this by documenting timeout behavior, though failure/timeout return semantics are not described.

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 one efficiently front-loaded sentence: the verb 'waits' appears immediately, followed by the resource, target condition, and optional stability window. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance about timing out or how this differs from sibling state-query tools, but this is minor given the schema and sibling names.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well, including the running/stopped enum and the timeout default. The description adds no significant parameter meaning beyond mirroring the execution-state and stability-window concepts already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('waits') and resource ('emulator') with an explicit condition ('target execution state') and the stability-window nuance. It clearly differentiates the wait behavior from sibling getter tools like get_monitor_state or get_session_state, which do not block.

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 waiting semantics implicitly signal use when the agent needs to block until the emulator reaches a particular state, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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