watch_for_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the streaming and terminating behavior but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or the exact stop condition (e.g., does it stop after first match?). The timeout parameter hints at resource management.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and follow with a practical use case. No redundant words.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values (e.g., what is returned when pattern is found?) and error cases (e.g., timeout behavior). It provides minimal but not complete context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify, e.g., that pattern can be regex or the effect of timeout.

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 verb 'stream' and the resource 'logs', with a specific condition 'until a pattern is found'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stream_logs (continuous) and search_logs (non-streaming).

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 explicitly gives a use case: 'start an action, then wait for a specific log message' for test automation. While it doesn't list when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, the sibling set makes the context clear.

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