Wait for a message

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

The description explains what a timeout means and what it does not mean, and clarifies that a timeout indicates only that nothing arrived. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the described blocking read behavior, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains reasonably concise. The timeout explanation is useful, though the 'healthy timeout' and 'degraded timeout' phrasing is slightly abstract and could be tightened.

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?

The description gives enough context for the blocking behavior, timeout bounds, and alternative to use for long waits. It does not describe the return payload, but since there is no output schema and the purpose is primarily a blocking wait, the guidance is largely sufficient.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds the notion of 'matching' but does not significantly extend the parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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: block until a matching message arrives, with a 60-second cap. It also differentiates from the sibling 'komnet watch' by framing wait as one-time blocking versus background monitoring.

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 explicitly advises using the background monitor 'komnet watch --thread <id>' when a reply may take hours, and implies this tool is for short, one-shot waits. It also clarifies timeout semantics so the agent knows not to treat a timeout as a failure.

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