qq_wait_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the immediate return on message arrival, the timeout fallback, and the zero-polling benefit. It does not mention error conditions or return format, but for a wait primitive this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core blocking behavior and efficient idioms. No wasted words – every sentence contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and usage loop. It clarifies that it waits for 'new' messages and returns after the timeout. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases like pre-existing messages, but the context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'or after maxWaitMs', which clarifies that the parameter is a timeout, but it does not specify units, default value when omitted, or range. The semantics are partially explained but lack detail.

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 verb (BLOCK) and resource (inbox for private messages), and distinguishes itself from alternatives by emphasizing 'zero polling/cost while waiting' – an implicit contrast to qq_poll_inbox. The purpose is 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?

It provides explicit usage guidance ('Call in a loop to idle efficiently waiting for QQ messages') and explains the timeout behavior (returns after maxWaitMs). It does not name a specific alternative, but the 'zero polling' comment implies the context where this tool is preferred over polling, which is adequate.

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