serial_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — early termination on a critical anomaly (ABORTED) — which the annotations cannot express. It omits what happens on plain timeout, but the key runtime behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the abnormal-exit condition both land immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a successful wait yields (matched text, boolean, incident?) and what a timeout returns, since that determines how the agent branches. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers inputs, but return semantics are left unstated.

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 the schema already documents the regex semantics (listen-only, no TX) and the timeout default and clamp range. The description's 'without sending' merely restates the schema's listen-only note, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) plus the resource and scope (a regex in serial output), and 'without sending' separates it from the write/monitor siblings. It does not name a specific sibling such as serial_read, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Works for observers' hints at the context in which this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus serial_read or serial_monitor, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and the listen-only note.

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