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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool blocks until a condition is met or a timeout occurs and that it returns current state, but it does not clarify side effects, error behavior, or what state fields are included. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, and the return-value note is useful. It avoids unnecessary filler, though 'timeout' is ambiguous as a verb/noun and the sentence structure could be slightly clearer.

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 two optional parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: the meaning of 'detail', the units/behavior of 'timeout', and when to call this instead of a status/state tool. The output schema lessens the need to document return values, but the operational context is incomplete.

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, but it does not explain either parameter. 'timeout' is somewhat self-explanatory from the description, yet its units and semantics are missing, and 'detail' is completely opaque with no values or purpose described.

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 identifies a waiting operation ('Wait for your turn, lobby to fill, or timeout') and states what it returns. It is distinct from sibling tools like arcade_action or arcade_state by focusing on the waiting behavior, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 implies when to use the tool: any time an agent needs to wait for a turn, lobby filling, or a timeout. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or when a different tool such as arcade_status or arcade_state would be more appropriate.

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