kd_wait_event

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 and may timeout, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it changes debugger state), whether multiple calls are safe, or how the timeout interacts with ongoing sessions. For a blocking operation, more explicit behavioral context is needed.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core action and condition are front-loaded. It is concise and to the point.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not state what happens on return (e.g., reason for break), nor does it clarify prerequisites like being attached to a target. A more complete description would explain the return or typical usage flow.

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 100%, and both parameters are described in the schema. The description's 'timeout expires' hints at the timeout parameter, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Wait until') and resource ('the running target'), clarifying that it blocks until a debugger event or timeout. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like kd_break or kd_go, but its purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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 usage (when you need to block until a break event), but provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like kd_break, kd_go, or kd_state. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., target must be attached) or conditions that would make it inappropriate.

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