dsh_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the blocking/subscription behavior, timeout semantics (default/max 300 seconds, 0 as one-shot), single-active-wait limitation, the fact that only status is returned, and the idempotent retry pattern for timed_out via the same cursor.

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 dense but tight, with every sentence providing actionable information. The core behavioral statement is front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance, retry rules, concurrency constraint, and the follow-up action, with no filler or repetition.

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 three parametershol, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key operational contract: blocking until terminal state, timeout behavior, cursor reuse, concurrency, and next step to dsh_result. An agent has enough context to call and retry this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains timeout_seconds (omit for normal delegation, 0 for one-shot, default/max 300) and after_cursor (use the ORIGINAL send_message after_cursor). session_id is not explicitly described, but its role is strongly inferable from the tool name and session context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Subscribe until completion, failure, stop, or timeout.' It also clarifies the tool's scope by stating that only status is returned and explicitly routes to dsh_result on completion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dsh_read_history and dsh_result.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use the original after_cursor on every wait, call wait again with the same cursor on timed_out, never resend the task or poll result/history, and only use one wait per session at a time. It also names dsh_result as the follow-up tool, leaving little to inference.

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