wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses why the delay matters and notes that the wait is bounded, but it does not explicitly say whether the call blocks, what the exact maximum is, or what the tool returns. These are meaningful gaps for a timing primitive, though the description still adds useful behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded, and focused on the timing behavior. The phrase 'bounded like every tap' is a little opaque and could be more precise, but there is very little wasted text.

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 one-parameter timing utility with no output schema, this is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, the unit, and the practical reason to use it. It would be stronger if it explicitly stated blocking behavior and the exact bound, but the schema already exposes the numeric limits.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that 'ms' means milliseconds and explains the timing intent, but it does not state the 0–5000 range or fully compensate for the missing schema documentation. 'Bounded like every tap' is vague and leaves the actual bounds to the schema.

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 that this tool waits before the next tool call and gives the unit as milliseconds. It also distinguishes its timing role from the input-emitting siblings by explaining that queued taps otherwise land back-to-back. The generic name 'wait' keeps it from being a perfect 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: use it for timing between inputs, especially when a frame-polled game might merge back-to-back taps into one hold. It does not name an alternative tool or state explicit exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent.

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