ruyi_intercept_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals queue mode (each call returns one), timeout behavior (timedOut=true), and the return fields (url, method, headers, body, responseStatus). The verb '消费' implies the item is removed from the queue, which is a useful side-effect disclosure, though it does not mention what happens if no interception is active or if the queue is empty beyond timeout.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('等待并消费一个拦截到的请求/响应'), then covers queue mode, timeout, and return fields in a compact format. Every clause adds meaningful information with no wasted words.

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?

The description captures the main behavior (wait/consume, queue, timeout, return fields) but lacks important contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., needing to call ruyi_intercept_requests first) and the meaning of pageIdx. The lack of annotations means the description is the only source of safety and interaction context, and while it covers core aspects, the missing pieces limit completeness for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this 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?

The schema description coverage is only 50%, with pageIdx lacking any description, and the tool description does not explain pageIdx at all. While the timeout parameter is described in the schema and its behavior is echoed in the tool description, the description fails to add meaning for pageIdx, leaving an undocumented parameter that the schema alone does not clarify. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool waits for and consumes an intercepted request/response, using the specific verb '等待并消费' with a clear resource. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like ruyi_intercept_requests (which sets up interception) by focusing on the retrieval/consumption aspect, and the queue mode ('每次调用返回一个') further clarifies its unique role.

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 implies usage through '队列模式：每次调用返回一个' and the timeout behavior, suggesting it should be called repeatedly to consume queued items. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ruyi_capture_wait or mention prerequisites such as setting up interception first, so the guidance is only implied.

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