pet_wait_break

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the machine is left stopped on firing and left running on timeout, and that timeout returns data not error. This is good transparency but could mention more about side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The timeout case is concisely covered.

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?

With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and timeout edge case but lacks parameter explanations. It is adequate but not fully complete given the 0% schema coverage.

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%, and the description only mentions 'timeout' implicitly. It does not explain 'session' or 'checkpoint_id'. The timeout parameter's default of 30 is noted in schema but not contextualized.

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?

Clearly states the tool blocks until a breakpoint/watchpoint fires, reports checkpoint id, PC, and registers. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like pet_break_add and pet_step.

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?

Describes the blocking behavior and timeout handling, but does not explicitly tell when to use this vs alternatives like pet_step or pet_continue. The timeout scenario is well explained.

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