dosbox_wait_for

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it does not raise on timeout, it returns whether the test was satisfied and the last value seen, and it blocks. This is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It could add more detail about invalid offsets or poll behavior, but for a read-only operation this is solid.

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 concise two-sentence structure: first states the core behavioral guarantee, then gives use cases, then states the return policy and timeout behavior. Every sentence stands alone and adds value without padding or restating the tool name.

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 covers the high-level operation, use cases, and timeout contract, and the existence of an output schema lessens the need to spell out return structure. However, the tool has 10 parameters and only 10% schema description coverage, so the description lacks essential detail on how to specify the test condition and how polling works. It is adequate for basic guidance but not fully complete for predictable invocation.

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 only 10%, and the description does not compensate. It says only 'satisfies a test' with a memory field, leaving equals, any_of, at_most, at_least, not_equals, size, pid, poll_seconds, and timeout_seconds semantics to inference. An agent has to guess how multiple conditions combine or whether they are exclusive. The description adds little meaning beyond what parameter titles already hint at.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Block until a memory field satisfies a test, or the timeout runs out.' It also gives concrete use examples like screen transitions, animations, and state bytes, which help distinguish it from memory reading or search tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it slightly under-delivers on full sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly says to use this when waiting for a screen transition, animation finish, or state byte to settle, and contrasts it with guessing at sleeps. It gives clear situational guidance, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like watch_frames or read_memory polling.

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