wait_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a blocking wait that ends when the chat answers or timeout_s passes, and it returns the job with its reply. It omits critical behavior such as what happens on timeout (error, empty reply, or partial job) and whether polling/rate limits apply.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, the termination condition, and the return value with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter blocking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core contract (wait, terminate on reply or timeout, return job+reply) but leaves the timeout outcome and time unit unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that job_id identifies the chat being waited on and that timeout_s is the wait bound, but it never states the unit (seconds is only inferable from the name) or the behavior at expiry.

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), the resource it waits on (the chat behind job_id), and the return payload (the job with its reply). It is distinguishable from siblings like read_chat or send_message, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is called after an async job was started to await its reply, and the timeout_s mention hints at bounded blocking. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the siblings.

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