Wait for the next message from the window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses that this is a blocking wait, that it returns before common tool timeouts rather than hanging, and that a timeout result is expected and should be retried. It omits whether calls queue or consume messages, but the core behavioral profile is unusually well covered for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: behavior and return payload first, timeout semantics second, prerequisite last. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical explaining what the element anchors are for.

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 correctly spells out the return payload (comment, element anchors, live-edit measurements). Combined with the retry guidance and prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and timeoutSec is fully documented with range and default in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The mention of 'common tool timeouts' loosely relates to the timeout parameter but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 blocking verb (wait), the exact trigger (user sends a message or an edit from the layout-debug window), and enumerates what comes back (comment, element anchors, live-edit measurements). An agent can distinguish this blocking wait from polling/peeking siblings like pending_requests.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Call open_window first') and operational guidance for the timeout case ('a timeout result is normal, call it again'). It does not explicitly contrast against pending_requests or reply_in_window, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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