WaitForExit

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing behavioral. It does not say whether the call blocks, what happens when timeout_ms elapses (error, partial result, or silent return), or whether poll_ms affects latency versus CPU cost — critical traits for a polling wait tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a narrow tool. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 blocking wait with a 10s default timeout and no output schema, the agent needs to know termination vs timeout behavior and how this differs from WaitForPause. Both are absent, so the definition is incomplete for correct invocation even though the core purpose is stated.

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 carries the full burden for poll_ms and timeout_ms and adds nothing — neither parameter is mentioned. Titles ('Poll Ms', 'Timeout Ms') and defaults are the only signal, leaving the timeout unit/semantics and polling tradeoff undocumented.

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+resource ('Wait until the debuggee exits'), which is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from most siblings. However, it never names WaitForPause, the sibling it is most easily confused with, so the exit-vs-pause distinction must be inferred from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., a debuggee must already be attached/running), and no mention of WaitForPause as the alternative for non-termination waits. The agent must guess the call context entirely.

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