Wait for monitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it excels. It discloses that the tool blocks, that monitors continue running even if the wait ends early, and that interruption still keeps monitors alive. It also specifies the outcome string 'wait_timeout' on timeout, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 total, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mode behavior, then timeout and persistence semantics. Each sentence earns its place; no redundant phrases or repetitive restating of the schema. Highly efficient yet complete.

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 blocking wait tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers behavior, modes, timeout, and resumption. The only gap is not describing what the response includes upon a successful settle (e.g., whether it returns which monitor id or status). Given that no output schema exists, this would be useful, but the description still provides enough orientation for an agent to use the tool.

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 has 67% coverage (ids and wait_timeout_seconds have description, mode has none). The description compensates by fully explaining mode semantics ('all' waits for all, 'any' returns on first) and the effect of wait_timeout_seconds (returns outcome 'wait_timeout'). This adds meaning beyond the raw enum and default values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Block until the given monitor(s) settle.' It clearly defines the scope (waiting on monitors) and distinguishes itself from siblings like monitor_create or monitor_status. The explanation of modes ('all', 'any') further sharpens what the tool does.

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 clear context on usage: it explains the 'all' vs 'any' modes and the timeout behavior. It also advises calling monitor_wait again to resume after interrupted waits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with monitor_status (e.g., 'use monitor_status for non-blocking checks'), so alternatives are implied rather than stated.

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