wait_for_output

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the waiting mechanism (drains until silent or deadline), mentions the quiescence timeout (PILOTY_QUIESCENCE_MS default 1000ms), and describes the outcome when deadline expires (partial output with 'outcome=deadline_exceeded'). This is good transparency, though it could mention error cases or side effects.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisites (session requirement) and detailed behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at the return format only by mentioning 'outcome=deadline_exceeded'. It does not describe other possible outcomes or the structure of captured output. It differentiates from one sibling but not all relevant ones (e.g., wait_for_regex). The tool is moderately complete but has 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 50%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for deadline_s by noting the max of 300 seconds and the quiescence context. However, it does not elaborate on session_id and leaves some param details to the schema. The added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for newly arriving PTY output without sending input.' It specifies the resource (PTY output) and the action (waiting), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wait_for_shell_prompt by noting that it waits for any new output, not specifically a prompt.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: after creating a session, and when waiting for output. It explicitly mentions an alternative: 'If you need to wait specifically for a shell prompt, use wait_for_shell_prompt().' However, it does not cover when not to use it or differentiate from wait_for_regex.

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