wait_for_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that the call blocks ('wait until they press Send') and the short-circuit behavior when an unseen sketch exists, which is valuable context. However, it says nothing about what happens on timeout or cancellation, despite a blocking call with a 90-second default and 600-second ceiling, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the return value and the early-return exception. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler wording.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that a sketch image and note are returned. For a two-parameter, non-destructive blocking tool the coverage is nearly complete, with the timeout failure mode being the only substantive omission.

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 100%, so both the prompt and timeout_seconds parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default and max. The description adds only the loose notion that something is shown on the board, without explaining how the prompt text surfaces or how timeout should be chosen, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 and resource: prompts the user to sketch and blocks until they press Send, then returns the sketch image and note. This implicitly separates it from agent-side siblings like draw or look, but it never names those siblings, so a reader must infer the distinction from the wording alone.

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 context is implied ('ask the user to sketch') rather than stated as a rule, and there is no when-not guidance or named alternative such as draw for agent-created geometry. It does earn credit for describing the useful edge case where a sketch was already sent but unseen, which changes when an agent should call it.

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