askew_inbox_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses blocking behavior, timeout semantics ('Returns 'inbox empty' on timeout without error'), early return, and the need to acknowledge items to avoid duplicates. This fully informs the agent of the tool's side effects and loop usage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary behavior, then adds usage and acknowledgment notes. Each sentence earns its place—no fluff. The structure is logical: behavior, usage, timeout handling, and follow-up action.

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 blocking tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what to expect (returns like askew_inbox_list), timeout behavior, and how to properly handle items (ack). An agent can call this correctly without additional information. The reference to askew_inbox_list is acceptable since it's a sibling tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema (e.g., it repeats the timeout range but doesn't explain 'since' beyond what's in the schema). It does add behavioral context about looping and acknowledgment, but that's not parameter semantics. Thus a 3 is appropriate.

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 (block/wait) and resource (inbox item), and explicitly distinguishes from askew_inbox_list by noting it returns the item exactly like that tool. It also names askew_inbox_ack for acknowledgment, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this in a loop to react to the phone in near real time' and instructs to call it again on timeout. It also mentions the ack tool for handling items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with askew_inbox_list (e.g., 'use list instead if you don't want to block'), so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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