vm_wait

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it blocks for a maximum of ten minutes, it is stateful (VM remains locked), and it requires a follow-up vm_unlock call. These are not captured in the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and add critical context for the agent.

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 every sentence adds essential information (timeout, usage timing, lock state, follow-up). No wasted words.

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?

For a blocking wait operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, the timeout bound, the lock state, and the required unlock call. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the context of sibling VM tools.

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 one required parameter, wait_seconds, with min/max values but zero description coverage. The description mentions 'at most ten minutes' which aligns with the max 600 seconds, but it does not explicitly state that wait_seconds controls the wait duration. The semantic link is implicit but incomplete.

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 in a FIFO lease queue for at most ten minutes, using a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('FIFO lease queue'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like process_wait by specifying the VM lease context.

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 explicitly says 'Use after VM_BUSY', providing a clear trigger condition. It also implies the usage pattern by noting the VM remains locked and vm_unlock should follow. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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