game_wait_for_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool blocks (synchronous) and that a timeout expires, but does not mention what happens on timeout (error vs. return value), whether log lines are consumed, or any side effects. Given that it's a harmless wait operation, the core behavior is clear, but error handling and return semantics are left to the output schema. Not as transparent as it could be.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, and the second provides valuable usage context. There is no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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, and an output schema exists, so return values are likely covered. The description explains what it does and when to use it. It does not mention any prerequisite (e.g., game_connect) or error conditions, but for a straightforward wait/assertion tool, the provided information is largely sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of timeout behavior details, but that can be inferred or covered by the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'pattern' as the pattern to match against log lines, and implicitly 'timeout' as the duration via the first sentence. It does not specify pattern syntax (e.g., regex) or default values, but it adds enough semantic meaning for an agent to understand what each parameter does. This is a strong effort given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Block until a log line matches `pattern`, or the timeout expires.' This is a specific verb (block/wait) and resource (log lines). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as 'the assertion primitive for automated tests,' which separates it from game_log (likely read-only log retrieval) and other action tools. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'fire an action, then wait for the line the game prints when the thing you expected happened.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (after triggering an action, to assert expected behavior). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for typical selection. No misleading guidance is present.

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