session_wait_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does state the core mechanism (reading output, waiting for pattern or timeout). However, it lacks details on what happens on timeout (e.g., error vs partial output), whether output is returned in full or incrementally, and how parameters like truncation and strip_ansi affect the behavior. The baseline is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage guidance. Every word is informative and necessary. No redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's function and when to use it, but does not describe return values or behavior in edge cases (e.g., timeout, truncation effects). Without an output schema, the description should provide more details on what the agent can expect as output.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic information about parameters—such as pattern format, timeout units, or truncation modes. It provides no value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 reads output from a session until a regex matches or timeout expires. It also explicitly distinguishes from session_read by specifying when to use this alternative, making the purpose and differentiation very clear.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use this instead of session_read when you know what output to expect.' This implies the appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use (e.g., for continuous reading without a pattern) or provide scenarios for alternatives beyond session_read.

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