askew_inbox_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the wait duration and the looping behavior, but does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., returns empty, returns null, errors), whether it consumes the item, or whether it is a read-only operation. The timeout behavior is partially implied by the schema default/maximum, but the return-on-timeout behavior is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence with a parenthetical usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the key behavior (wait up to 30 seconds) is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the 'since' parameter, what a 'new inbox item' means, what the return value looks like, or timeout behavior. The loop hint helps, but an agent still lacks enough to call it correctly with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain either parameter. 'since' is entirely unexplained (likely a timestamp/cursor), and 'timeout' is only implied by the description's 'up to 30 seconds'. The schema provides types/defaults but no semantic meaning, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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 states a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('new inbox item'), and adds a concrete time bound ('up to 30 seconds'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like askew_inbox_list (list) and askew_inbox_ack (acknowledge), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 parenthetical 'loop this to react immediately' gives explicit usage context for a polling/waiting pattern. It implies this tool is for blocking until a new item arrives, versus listing or acknowledging. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the loop guidance is useful and clear.

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