agent_wait_idle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses blocking behavior, the motion-based detection approach, and the return condition ('screen stable for a few seconds'). However it does not state what happens on timeout (return vs error), whether any state is mutated, or what the return payload conveys.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately justified by the mechanism. No filler.

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 parameterless-of-annotations, no-output-schema blocking tool, the definition covers intent and mechanism but omits timeout semantics and return content, which an agent needs to handle the blocking call safely. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67%: stable_ms and timeout_ms are documented with defaults, but 'session' has no schema description and none is supplied here. The description's mention of the screen being 'stable for a few seconds' loosely ties to stable_ms but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Block until a tmux-hosted agent stops producing output') and clarifies the detection mechanism ('Movement-based, not marker-based'). It implicitly differentiates from agent_read/agent_transcript by describing wait semantics, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Block until... stops producing output' implies the use case, and 'works for any harness' hints at generality, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus agent_read, agent_transcript, or polling alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the waiting primitive rather than a read.

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