ksp_wait_for_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core blocking/return semantics ('return immediately when the event cursor advances'), which is the central behavioral trait. It says nothing about timeout behavior, what happens if no event arrives, polling cost, or cursor resumption, which are critical for a wait primitive.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and return condition before the elaboration clause. Efficient, though the trailing rationale clause is longer than strictly needed.

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?

A 6-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool needs far more than this description provides. The agent is not told what the return payload looks like (events? cursor? state?), how timeout interacts with return, or the meaning of most parameters, leaving it under-specified 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 only 17% (only 'sections' is documented) across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. 'Cursor advances' loosely hints at the resume semantics of the 'since' parameter, but limit, timeout, poll_interval, and include_events are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) and resource (next KSP telemetry event) and explains the return condition (cursor advances). It also characterizes itself as the event-driven primitive for observing scene/state changes, which partially distinguishes it, but it never names an alternative sibling like ksp_wait_for_scene or ksp_watch.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'primary event-driven primitive for an AI without vision to observe construction, ignition, staging, orbit crossings, and touchdown,' which gives a sense of the context. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, and the closely related siblings (ksp_wait_for_scene, ksp_watch) are never mentioned as alternatives or compared.

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