Wait for output pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the core polling behavior and completion conditions, which is valuable. However, it omits key behavioral details such as what happens when iterations are exhausted (error vs. graceful return), whether the tool returns matched output, and any side effects (or lack thereof). This is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key termination logic. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the basic polling loop but does not clarify the return value, error behavior, or relationship between intervalMs and iterations. The rich schema descriptions compensate only for parameter meaning, not for runtime behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it merely restates the concept of 'regex pattern' and 'iterations' without explaining parameter interactions or format details.

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 identifies the action ('Poll a pane') and the goal ('for a regex pattern'), with a specific termination condition ('complete when matched or after iterations'). It is semantically distinct from sibling tools like tmux_capture_pane or tmux_tail_pane, but it does not explicitly name alternatives as the rubric's highest tier requires.

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 a usage scenario: use this when you need to wait for a regex pattern to appear in a pane. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., tmux_tail_pane, tmux_watch_dir_task) nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving selection to the agent.

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