wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that this is a polling operation, that it waits for a reply to finish, that a 'generating' status means the agent must poll again, and that it returns the reply in reply_format. It does not describe error/timeout edge cases or explicitly confirm lack of side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key constraint and loop behavior, then the return semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main loop and return value adequately. However, it leaves gaps: the chat parameter is unexplained, non-'generating' statuses are not mentioned, and timeout behavior is only implied. These gaps prevent it from being fully self-sufficient.

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. It explains timeout_sec (max 900) and reply_format (the format of the returned reply), but it completely omits the required 'chat' parameter. An agent would have to guess what value to supply for chat, which is a significant gap for the only required parameter.

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's function: 'Wait for the newest reply in a chat to finish (poll).' It identifies the verb, resource, and behavior, and distinguishes itself from siblings like status or get_reply by emphasizing polling and reply retrieval. The added details about status=generating and reply_format make the tool's role unmistakable.

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 concrete usage guidance: set timeout_sec<=900, and if the returned status is 'generating', call wait again. This tells the agent how to use the tool in a loop. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for typical polling scenarios.

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