Pause until a DeepSeek Harness session finishes the turn following a given sequence number, or until the wait times out.
Wait until the Session ends a turn after afterSeq, or until the timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| afterSeq | Yes | The afterSeq that dsh_send returned. | |
| sessionId | Yes | Session id from dsh_open_session or dsh_list_sessions. | |
| timeoutSec | No | Longest wait in seconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the essential blocking behavior and that timeouts terminate the wait. However, it omits what happens on timeout (return current state vs error), whether concurrent waits are allowed, and any rate/long-poll constraints, which are important for a blocking call.
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 short sentence that front-loads the blocking condition and back-loads the timeout fallback. It earns its place, though the phrasing 'ends a turn after afterSeq' is slightly awkward and could be tighter.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should resolve the biggest ambiguity: what the call returns/does when the timeout fires versus when the turn ends. That distinction, central to correct invocation, is absent.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including that afterSeq comes from dsh_send. The description only echoes afterSeq and adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (wait) plus the exact terminating condition (session ends a turn after afterSeq, or timeout). It is distinguishable from siblings like dsh_read/dsh_send, though it never names them or clarifies the read-vs-block distinction 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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to prefer this over polling with dsh_read, nor when a caller should skip waiting. The only implicit cue is the term 'wait' itself, which the agent must interpret unaided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.