Wait for a Slack reply

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the blocking cost per call, the `replied: false` contract with `next_step`, the recommendation to cap retries, and the hard interaction with the MCP client's tool-call timeout. Nothing here contradicts the annotations — the tool does read Slack but consumes a model turn, so readOnlyHint=false is not inconsistent with the text.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct operational rule with no filler. It is dense but slightly long, with the Claude Code MCP_TOOL_TIMEOUT parenthetical being the only marginal content.

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 six-parameter blocking poll tool with no output schema, it covers the blocking semantics, the failure return fields, the retry policy, and the client-side timeout ceiling. An agent can call this correctly and know what to do on a timeout without further information.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `since_ts` should be the ts of the question from send_message, and `timeout_seconds` must stay under the client's tool-call timeout. It also explains that replies both as top-level messages and inside the question's thread are matched, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 verb and resource with precise scope: blocks until a human (not the bot) replies in a channel, DM, or thread, then returns the new messages. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the non-blocking sibling check_replies, which it names later.

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?

Explicitly bounds when to use it ('only when an answer is likely within a minute or two; every call costs a model turn') and gives a decision path for the failure case: follow `next_step`, and after a couple of timeouts stop and use check_replies instead. That is when/when-not/alternative guidance in full.

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