pane_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses blocking wait behavior, idle/matched/timeout outcomes, tail_lines return, and the timeout/client-timeout relationship. It doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether it consumes pane output, but the wait semantics and retry guidance provide strong behavioral transparency.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: core condition, return-value purpose, and operational caution. The most important guidance is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 5-parameter wait tool with no annotations, the description covers the blocking behavior, return states, tail output, and timeout strategy. The output schema fills in the return structure, so the description doesn't need to. Minor gaps like pattern case-sensitivity or behavior when a pane is not found are not critical for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: idle_seconds (stops changing), pattern (regex), tail_lines (lines returned), and timeout_seconds (limit under client timeout) are all explained. Only 'pane' is left implicit, but the tool name and schema title make it inferable. This is solid compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Wait until a pane stops changing... or pattern (regex) appears.' It also explains the three terminal states and the tail output, making the tool's role unambiguous. This is clearly distinct from siblings like pane_read (immediate read) and panes_list, even without naming them.

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 gives clear operational context ('so you can decide whether the agent finished, is asking a question, or errored') and practical advice ('Keep timeout_seconds under your client's tool timeout; call again to keep waiting'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with pane_read or pane_send, but the wait-for-condition purpose is obvious enough that an agent can choose it correctly.

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