herdr_wait_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Block until', which is verbose and could be interpreted as a synchronous wait, but it does not explain timeout behavior, error handling, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return value is (since there is no output schema). It also does not clarify if it polls or uses events. These gaps are significant for a blocking tool, so a 2 is appropriate.

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, with the primary action and use case front-loaded. There is no redundant text, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, so it earns a 5.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, blocking behavior, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what happens on timeout, whether the operation is side-effect free, or the return value. It also does not differentiate from sibling wait tools. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone, making a 2 appropriate.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (match, regex, source, pane_id, timeout_ms), giving high coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the purpose ('wait for a build/command to finish'), which does not clarify parameter-specific semantics like how timeout_ms behaves or how source options differ. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not meaningfully improve 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 states a clear action ('Block until'), a specific resource ('a pane's output'), and the condition ('matches given text or regex'). It also gives a concrete use case ('wait for a build/command to finish in another agent's pane'). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from simple read operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling wait tools.

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 context for when to use the tool: waiting for a build/command to finish in another agent's pane. It implies the tool is for cross-agent waits, but it does not explicitly contrast with other wait tools like herdr_agent_wait, herdr_agent_wait_any, or herdr_agent_wait_settled, nor does it state when not to use it. Thus it has clear context but no exclusions or alternatives, fitting a 4.

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