session_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it discloses long-poll semantics, timeout behavior, the EGC_MESH_PUSH=0 opt-out and degradation, cursor advancement, and—critically—warns that payloads from other sessions are untrusted and must not be executed blindly.

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 information-dense but appropriately sized for a nontrivial long-polling tool. Every sentence carries useful operational or security context, though it is somewhat longer than strictly necessary and could have moved the env-var detail to a separate note without losing clarity.

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 complex asynchronous tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers behavior, timeout, fallback mode, consumption semantics, and security. The main gap is that it does not specify what is returned on timeout or the exact shape of the result, though the reference to session_events partially compensates.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline score.

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 opens with 'Long-poll the session bus' and precisely explains the behavior: immediate return if events are pending, otherwise wait until an event or timeout. It distinguishes itself from the sibling session_events by contrasting the long-poll behavior and noting events are consumed exactly like session_events.

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 makes it clear when this tool applies (waiting for events) and implicitly contrasts with session_events by describing the fallback and consumption semantics. However, it does not explicitly state 'use session_events instead when you want a one-shot read' or list other exclusions, so guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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