Wait For Text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the waiting behavior and timeout (implied by the parameter), but doesn't detail what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns text, throws error), rate limits, or side effects. It adds some context but leaves gaps for a tool that interacts with terminal sessions.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage. It covers the purpose and usage context well but lacks details on return values, error handling, or deeper behavioral traits, which could be important for a waiting operation in terminal sessions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'regex pattern' and implies timeout usage but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as regex format examples or timeout behavior specifics.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Wait until'), resource ('regex pattern'), and location ('in the terminal buffer'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_region' or 'send_text' by focusing on waiting behavior rather than reading or sending.

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 for when to use this tool ('Useful for waiting for prompts, loading states, or specific output'), giving practical examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as 'wait_for_idle' which might serve a similar waiting purpose.

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