herdr_agent_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It reveals the blocking behavior and gives a use case, but does not disclose timeout handling, error conditions, or return values. The schema documents timeout_ms, but the description does not emphasize its importance, leaving gaps for an agent.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and directly states the use case, making it efficient. Slightly more structure could be added, but it is well-suited for quick scanning.

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 simple blocking tool, the description is adequate but omits key behavioral details such as timeout consequences and what happens if the target is not found. It also does not clarify how it differs from sibling wait tools, which is important given the many related options. The lack of an output schema further necessitates a more comprehensive description.

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 descriptions for all parameters (especially status enum and timeout_ms). The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'idle/done' statuses, which are already in the enum. It does not compensate for any missing schema information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 blocks until an agent reaches a specified status, specifying the verb 'block' and the resource 'agent'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like herdr_agent_wait_settled or herdr_agent_wait_any, so it lacks explicit 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 provides a clear usage context—synchronizing a handoff by waiting for an agent to become idle or done—which helps the agent understand when to apply it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide usage.

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