herdr_agent_wait

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the description need not restate that. However, the key behavioral traits of a blocking wait tool are undisclosed: that it blocks the caller, that timeout_ms defaults to 20000 and caps at 25000, and what happens on timeout versus success.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is thin rather than tight — the brevity comes from omitting information rather than from efficient phrasing. The purpose is front-loaded, which is good.

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 20s default timeout, no output schema, and no annotations describing blocking behavior, the description should explain what is returned on success or timeout and how the caller resumes. None of that is present.

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 schema already documents target, until, and timeout_ms; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, and notably does not clarify the semantics of omitting 'until' or the timeout cap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('wait for an agent') plus the condition being awaited ('to reach a state'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as herdr_pane_wait_output or herdr_agent_get, which an agent may need to choose between.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like herdr_agent_get (polling) or herdr_pane_wait_output. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as the agent already being started or what to do when the wait times out.

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