process_wait

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the VM lock persists after waiting and that an explicit vm_unlock is required. It also mentions 'bounded period,' which implies a timeout behavior. However, it does not detail what happens on timeout (e.g., whether it errors or returns normally), leaving a small transparency gap.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second a crucial side note about the VM lock. There is no filler or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for easy parsing.

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 action and the lock behavior, but omits timeout semantics and return value expectations. Given no output schema, the agent is left to guess what happens on timeout or what the tool returns. This is a moderate gap for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explicitly explain process_id or timeout_ms. 'Bounded period' hints at timeout but does not name the parameter or specify units. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 action ('Wait for a process to exit') and the bounded nature of the wait. This distinguishes it from siblings like process_kill (which terminates) and process_list (which enumerates), and from vm_wait which likely waits on VM-level states. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to block until a process exits) and provides a critical condition: the VM remains locked by this session, so vm_unlock must be called afterwards. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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