pmux_agent_wait_ready

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains the polling mechanism (pane capture + tab_status, no server-side registry), non-terminal states (agent_busy keeps polling), boot mode details, echo behavior, and session lifetime contract. All relevant behaviors are disclosed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is somewhat verbose with multiple clauses and parentheticals. Some phrases like 'supersedes ready heuristics, requireBusyTransition and runtimeError' are dense but still add value. Minor trimming could improve readability without losing content.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all return states (agent_ready, still starting, etc.), explains the boot.fileSeen diagnostic field in responses, and even provides a session lifetime contract. No gaps remain for understanding tool behavior.

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?

Despite high schema coverage (92%), the description adds significant meaning beyond parameter descriptions. For example, it explains that expectEcho requires bootId and is only meaningful with bootstrapEcho:true, that timeoutMs defaults to 90000 when expectEcho is true, and that requireBusyTransition behaves differently for boot vs. after-send scenarios.

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: 'poll a tab until an agent is ready, still starting/busy, launch_failed, exited, or timeout.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmux_send_input and pmux_capture_pane by calling them low-level fallbacks, establishing this as the primary orchestration tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., for boot verification after pmux_agent_start) and when to use alternatives (pmux_send_input/pmux_capture_pane as low-level fallbacks). It also explains parameter defaults and conditions like requireBusyTransition for different scenarios.

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