inotify_wait_event

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does reveal that the call blocks synchronously, which is useful, but it does not state what happens on timeout, whether an existing watch is required, whether the event is returned, or whether the wait can be interrupted.

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 no filler. It names the action, the operation mode, the resource, and the target. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear the relationship to inotify_watch, timeout behavior, return value, and error conditions, which an agent would need to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the notion of 'specific' event selection, which loosely maps to the 'events' parameter, but it does not meaningfully enrich the semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('a specific filesystem event on a path'), and 'synchronously' differentiates it from async or read-style siblings like inotify_read_events. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with alternative tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus inotify_watch, inotify_read_events, or other siblings. The word 'synchronously' implies blocking usage, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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