mystorax_wait_stream_hint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects (if any), whether it is read-only or mutating, what it produces (a string recipe? an SSE endpoint?), or its limitations. The 'recipe' language hints at returning instructional text, but there is no confirmation of return format or behavioral traits.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete - brevity is achieved at the cost of missing critical operational details.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description should fully carry the burden. It fails to explain the wait_id parameter, what the returned 'recipe' looks like, how it integrates with SSE, or the relationship to CLI token conservation. A simple wait/stream tool should be more thoroughly documented given zero supporting structured metadata.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a single undocumented parameter (wait_id), the description must compensate but does not. It never mentions wait_id, what it represents (a wait identifier, session token?), or why it is optional (required params = 0). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type.

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 references an 'SSE wait-wake recipe' and connects it to 'CLI tokens', but does not clearly state what the tool actually does, returns, or modifies. The purpose is partially discernible (provide a recipe for waiting via SSE), but vague terms like 'recipe' and 'burn tokens' obscure the exact operation. It does give some resource orientation (SSE wait-wake) but lacks a clear verb+object statement like 'Build/return a wait condition'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The phrase 'so Hands do not burn CLI tokens waiting' implies a use case (avoiding polling/token waste) but does not clarify situations where the tool should NOT be used or name direct alternatives. Sibling tools exist (mystorax_job_status, mystorax_science_status) that could involve waiting, but the description offers no differentiation.

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