dsh_wait

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it blocks up to 30 seconds, waits for specific event types, and does not wait for whole-task completion. This is meaningful context that the annotations do not convey.

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 primary action and constraints, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized 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 description covers the core behavior and timeout limit but omits parameter explanations and return-value behavior. Since there is no output schema, a sentence about what the tool returns on timeout or success would improve completeness. Still, the fundamental use case is understandable.

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 three parameters with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain taskId, timeoutSec, or sinceCursor; the only hint is 'at most 30 seconds,' which vaguely maps to timeoutSec. Given the low coverage, the description must compensate but does not, severely limiting parameter-level understanding.

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 waits for specific task-related events (new cursor, status/availability change, terminal state, pending interaction) and explicitly excludes whole-task completion. This differentiates it from sibling tools that might handle completion or status, giving it a specific verb and resource scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (waiting for task updates) and when not (never waits for whole-task completion). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for the excluded case, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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