wait_for_message

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

Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a generally good job. It discloses polling behavior, a timeout condition, and the critical filter that only received mail counts. It does not detail error behavior on timeout or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are conveyed.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the main behavior, and each sentence adds genuine value. Decorations like 'ARRIVES' are minor and not harmful. There is no outdated not revenue data.

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 2-parameter polling tool with no annotation or output schema, the description covers the main outcome: it polls, returns an email, waits until new mail arrives or times out, and filters out outgoing messages. The main gap is that the address parameter's relation to the inbox is left implicit, and timeout outcome is not fully specified.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters, but it only mentions 'timeout' in passing and never explicitly ties 'address' to the inbox being polled. It does not clarify timeout units, accepted formats, or what happens if the address is invalid. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity for actually invoking the tool.

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 states a specific action, 'Poll the inbox until a new message ARRIVES', and adds 'or timeout' plus a returned result, which makes its function unmistakable. It also clarifies that only received mail is matched, differentiating it from waiting for outgoing messages or reading existing mail. This is more precise than the tool name alone.

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 gives a concrete use case: send to a peer and wait for their reply without matching your own outgoing message. This explains when the tool is intended to be used, but it does not explicitly name alternative siblings such as wait_for_otp, wait_until_sent, or read_messages, nor does it state when not to use them.

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