xtalk_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies blocking behavior by saying 'Wait', but does not explicitly state that it blocks, whether it times out, or what happens on success/failure. The timeout_ms parameter hints at a timeout, but no further behavioral details are given.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It could be improved by adding structured details, but as is, it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return values, matching logic, or behavior on timeout, leaving agents with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameter names (room, kinds, thread, timeout_ms, in_reply_to) provide hints but are insufficient for correct usage without further elaboration.

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 states the tool waits for a matching message and positions itself as a portable fallback when no Monitor exists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xtalk_listen, though 'matching message' is somewhat vague.

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 a clear context for using this tool: 'portable fallback when no Monitor exists.' It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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