onda_terminal_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, timeout, regex engine, default flags, and the return object shape. It does not mention edge-case behavior on timeout, but the return type covers the expected outcome.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core function, the second gives a practical use case, and the third clarifies regex specifics and return type. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is quite complete for a wait tool: it covers purpose, usage pattern, parameter details (flags), and return shape. It lacks explicit mention of timeout failure behavior, but that is implied by the return object and the phrase 'or timeout'.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'pattern' is a JavaScript regex string, explaining the default flags ('m'), and describing the return object, which is especially useful since no output schema exists.

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 uses a specific verb (block) and resource (terminal output), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like terminal_read, terminal_poll, and terminal_run. It states the exact behavior: wait for regex match or timeout.

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?

It provides explicit use-case guidance: 'Useful to synchronize scripted command sequences: run command -> wait for prompt -> run next command.' This implies when to use it over alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name excluded tools.

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