vm_wait

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

For a tool with only default annotations, this description carries important behavioral context: the wait is in a FIFO lease queue, the session retains the VM lock afterward, and the wait is capped at ten minutes. It does not describe what happens if the wait times out or if VM_BUSY never clears.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and timeout, and every sentence adds operational value. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: when to call it, how long the wait can be, the resulting lock state, and the cleanup call. The main missing piece is failure/timeout behavior, but the core usage is complete.

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 already describes vm_name well, but wait_seconds has no schema description. The phrase 'at most ten minutes' helps explain the wait_seconds upper bound and units, partially compensating for that gap. An explicit statement like 'wait_seconds is the maximum time in seconds to wait' would push this higher.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Wait in the FIFO lease queue' with a concrete limit ('at most ten minutes'). It also conveys the lock lifecycle ('VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished'), which distinguishes it from the vm_lock/vm_unlock siblings without ambiguity.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use after VM_BUSY') and a required follow-up ('call vm_unlock when finished'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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