wait_di_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling mechanism (poll READ_STATUS), the trigger condition (no input→has input), and that it executes the action and returns a result. It also implies blocking behavior via the timeout parameter. However, it doesn't detail the exact return value format or potential side effects of executing relay actions.

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 structured logically: main behavior, parameter summary, and natural language examples. It is slightly redundant with the schema (repeating parameter names and defaults), but the examples and behavioral overview earn their place. Each section is concise and the overall length is appropriate for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 provides a comprehensive overview of the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameters, along with natural language mappings. However, there is no output schema or mention of the return value structure, leaving some ambiguity about what 'returns result' means. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it's mostly complete but could benefit from a brief note on the expected response.

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 lists all parameters and their defaults, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each. The description groups start/end/count/delay as 'ping_pong action parameters', adding marginal value by clarifying their purpose, but it doesn't go beyond the schema.

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 monitors a DI channel's rising edge trigger and automatically executes a specified action, with natural language examples like 'detect input trigger' and 'run light when DI1 has signal'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_status (which only reads status) and ping_pong (which executes an action without waiting for a trigger).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (monitoring a DI trigger and executing an action), supported by natural language mappings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use read_status for direct status reads' or 'use ping_pong directly without waiting'.

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