Wait for a console line to appear

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the call blocks, 'client' watches a live stream while 'server' polls FIVEM_SERVER_LOG, and only lines appended after the call are considered. It does not describe what a timeout yields, which is the main remaining gap for a blocking tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the target mechanics, then the usage trigger. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the blocking model and target behavior. The only omission is timeout/partial-result behavior, which matters for a tool that blocks up to timeoutMs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: the stream-vs-poll distinction for 'target' and the 'only lines appended after the call count' semantics that govern afterSeq and the freshness of matches.

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 precise verb+resource+mechanism: 'Block until a line matching a regex appears.' It also distinguishes itself from read-only siblings (read_console, wait) by describing the two observation targets and the streaming-vs-polling model, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it: 'Use after a fire-and-forget command, to watch for a resource's startup banner, an error, or a scripted RESULT: line.' That is concrete triggering context, though it never names a competing sibling (e.g., read_console) or says when not to use it.

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