wait_for_new_prompt

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it blocks until a prompt is found or timeout, and it is efficient for loop usage. However, with no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the prompt or null on timeout) or whether it consumes the prompt, leaving important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It clearly states what the tool does, when to use it, and key constraints, without any 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?

Given the tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. However, it lacks critical contextual information about the return value (what the caller gets upon success or timeout) and potential side effects. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, including a clear description for timeout_seconds. The tool description merely mentions 'timeout' indirectly when saying 'or timeout is reached,' adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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's function: waiting for a new prompt from Telegram and blocking until a prompt arrives or timeout. It specifies the resource (Telegram) and the action (wait for new prompt). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like await_user_response, which could also involve waiting for user input, so it misses a clear distinguishing factor.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this in a loop to monitor for incoming tasks.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the loop context is a clear and useful directive.

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