Wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the purpose (pausing for game state changes) and the timing, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence effectively communicates the action and purpose with no wasted words. It includes a dash-separated list of use cases that are immediately relevant to an agent.

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 simple, single-parameter wait tool with strong annotations, this description is complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and why it matters. No output schema is present, but the return behavior is trivial and not worth additional explanation.

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 schema defines the 'seconds' parameter with type number and min/max constraints, but the description only says 'a number of seconds', which adds no additional meaning beyond the property name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 action ('Pauses for a number of seconds') and the resource (time). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools by being the only one that waits, and it adds specific use cases (smelting, mob spawning, water flowing) that clarify its unique role.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'useful for letting things settle ... between other tool calls.' It gives concrete scenarios and implies it should be used after triggering time-dependent actions, which is clear guidance for an agent selecting between this and other tools.

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