wait_for_game_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a timeout but does not specify behavior on timeout (error, null, etc.), whether the tool blocks, or if the game must be in a specific state. Essential behavioral traits like side effects or concurrency are undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that effectively covers the main functionality. While concise, it could benefit from slight restructuring to separate the event types more clearly. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value or error behavior. It explains event types and timeout but lacks completeness for a blocking/waiting tool. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the prefix format for the event parameter (signal:, node:, property:). This clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic type. The timeout parameter is adequately described with default and range.

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 action (wait) and the resource (game event) with specific event types (signal, node creation, property change). It is distinguishable from simple waiting tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'wait_for_node', which could cause slight ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., game must be running). There is no exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools.

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