herdr_agent_wait_any

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that losing waits are cancelled and that per-target after_seq cursors prevent stale terminal states, which adds meaningful behavior beyond the name. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether waits are non-destructive), timeout behavior, and the meaning of 'idle, done, or blocked' in practice. Some behavioral transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

Two dense sentences, each adding unique information: the concurrency and terminal states, the cancellation behavior, and the cursor mechanism. No filler or redundancy. The most important fact (concurrent wait-for-first) is front-loaded.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, timeout semantics, or what the awaited states mean in practice. Critical usage context is missing for a tool that coordinates multiple agents, making successful invocation risky without prior knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'after_seq cursors' but does not explain the after_seq parameter, and it entirely omits read_lines and timeout_ms, leaving their purpose and accepted values unexplained. The target parameter's meaning is only hinted at via 'agents' and the description of target types in the schema, but the description does not reinforce it. The compensation is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('several agents') with the condition 'first ... to become idle, done, or blocked'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by the 'concurrently' and 'any' semantics, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., herdr_agent_wait, herdr_agent_wait_settled). The description explains what it does but not the conditions that would lead an agent to choose it over alternatives. No exclusions or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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