wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the critical behavioral trait that this blocks the entire agent turn, and that a timeout yields partial progress rather than an empty result. It does not cover what happens with invalid/unknown ids or concurrent blocking calls, so it falls short of a 5.

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 core action, followed by the cost warning and the alternative. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at returns; it explains the timeout case but not the shape of a successful return (e.g., results per agent). The blocking-cost warning compensates for much of the rest, making this nearly complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 ids, mode, and timeoutSec (with defaults and max) are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's note about timeout returning progress adds behavioral context for timeoutSec but no new parameter semantics.

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 (block/wait) and resource (named agents) with an explicit completion condition. An agent can distinguish this from spawn, steer, stop, and inspect without opening any 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 NOT to use it ('prefer the background-task bridge from spawn') and narrows the acceptable condition to 'only when there is genuinely nothing else to do.' It names the alternative tool and the selecting condition, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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