process_wait

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the wait is bounded, the VM lock persists for the session, and the agent should call vm_unlock afterward. This is relevant operational behavior not captured in the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the lock-related follow-up instruction is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core wait action and lock handling, but with no output schema, it leaves timeout behavior and edge cases (e.g., what happens when the bounded period expires or the process already exited) to inference. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 only 33%: vm_name is documented, but process_id and timeout_ms are not. The description does not explain these parameters, and 'bounded period' only weakly hints at timeout_ms. It fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Wait for a process to exit') and a resource, clearly distinguishing it from process_kill. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with vm_wait or other wait-type siblings, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 clear usage context: wait for a bounded period and remember that the VM remains locked, requiring vm_unlock when finished. It does not, however, state when to choose this tool over alternatives like vm_wait or process_kill.

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