game_await_signal

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

No annotations provide behavioral hints, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions timeout and return args but does not explain timeout behavior (e.g., error or fallback), blocking nature, or what the returned arguments contain. This is insufficient for a likely blocking operation.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase) with no wasted words. It accomplishes its purpose efficiently, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of awaiting a signal with timeout, the description is minimal. No output schema exists, so return value semantics are unclear. More details on timeout handling and return format are needed for full completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'timeout' and 'return args', which are already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool awaits a signal with a timeout and returns arguments. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like connect/disconnect/emit/list signals.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. The description implies use for awaiting a signal, but doesn't compare to alternatives like game_connect_signal or game_emit_signal, leaving the agent to infer context.

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