kvm_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the sequential behavior (wait, then screenshot) and explicitly labels the tool as 'read tier,' indicating a safe, read-only operation. It does not cover error cases or return-format details, but for such a simple tool this is adequate context.

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 two short sentences that pack in the operation, the precise use cases, and an anti-pattern to avoid. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a straightforward action, the description covers the operation, the timing contexts, and the read-only safety tier. The main gap is the undocumented parameter semantics, but given the simplicity of the tool and the clear numeric parameter name/range in the schema, the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the 'seconds' parameter. It fails to explain that this parameter controls the wait duration or how it relates to the 'Wait' action, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name and schema defaults. The description adds almost no semantic value for the parameter.

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's function: wait, then return a fresh screenshot. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like kvm_screenshot by specifying the use case (boots, installers, Recovery) and by explicitly saying 'instead of re-screenshotting in a loop.' The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit contexts where the tool should be used (boots, installers, Recovery) and recommends against an alternative approach (re-screenshotting in a loop). However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly or provide a clear when-not-to-use condition beyond that loop anti-pattern, so it stops short of a 5.

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