terminal_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the polling cadence (every second), the timeout cap, the special early-return condition for permission prompts (with a concrete example string), and the full set of return statuses with their meanings. This is exactly the behavioral depth an agent needs to predict tool behavior without executing it.

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?

Three tight paragraphs where every sentence earns its place: core purpose and polling behavior first, the special permission-prompt behavior second, and a compact enumeration of return statuses third. There is zero fluff, zero repetition of schema content, and the most decision-relevant information 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must document return values — it does, enumerating found/permission_needed/timeout with meanings. Minor gaps remain: error behavior for an invalid terminal name or pattern is unaddressed, and the phrase 'JSON-like status' is imprecise about the exact response shape, which could cause parsing ambiguity for an agent.

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%: every parameter (name, pattern, timeout, interrupt_on) already has a clear schema description including defaults, bounds, and matching semantics. The description adds minor linkage — e.g., how pattern relates to the 'found' status and how interrupt_on defaults to permission prompts — but the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for a terminal to show specific output.' It adds the polling mechanism (every second up to timeout), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like terminal_read or terminal_snapshot — none of which block-and-wait. An agent can immediately know what this tool is for and what it is not.

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: the permission_needed status and 'so the conductor can approve' hint at an orchestration flow, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives like terminal_read or terminal_snapshot, nor does it mention a canonical flow such as 'send a command, then wait for its output.' No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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