wait_for_teammates

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the call blocks, that it honors a minutes budget with a default of 5, that the client may truncate the wait to under a minute, and that a null result arrives as changed:false with a re-check hint. These are the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Two dense sentences plus a directive, front-loading the precondition before the mechanics and the prohibition. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape documentation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the two possible outcomes (get_context-like data vs. changed:false). Combined with blocking semantics, defaults, and the client-truncation caveat, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single minutes parameter, so the description must carry the semantics — and it does, supplying the default (5) and the interaction rule that the client may cut the wait below that value. It does not restate the 1–10 bounds, which the schema already enforces.

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?

States a specific blocking verb and its resource (holds until news from a teammate) and explicitly equates the successful return with get_context, which disambiguates it from that sibling without opening either schema. 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Only when you cannot go on without a teammate's answer") and an explicit anti-pattern ("Never use it to idle or poll"), plus the prescribed alternative behavior when idle ("end your turn"). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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