Wait for something to happen

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is that this call blocks live, that it can time out, and that certain event types require chat:read or logs:read permissions – permission requirements that would otherwise be invisible. It stops short of saying what a timeout actually returns, which is the one behavioral detail an agent most 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and timeout behavior, and the long event-type list earns its space as a value reference. The list is delivered as one run-on sentence with an interleaved parenthetical about permissions, which makes it slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and 'get it' does not describe the shape of a returned event or what happens on timeout (error versus empty result) – a significant omission for a blocking tool where callers must branch on that outcome. Permission scoping and type enumeration are well covered, so the gap is narrow but real.

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 75% and the schema gives no enums, so the description's enumeration of valid 'types' values (player.join, block.break, server.console, etc.) is genuinely load-bearing information not available elsewhere. It also explains that 'player' and 'world' act as narrowing filters and that timeoutSeconds is bounded by client limits, though it adds nothing about the default or the 1-300 range already in the schema.

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 ('Wait until an event happens live and get it, or time out') and enumerates the concrete event types, which immediately separates it from the sibling get_events that returns already-recorded events. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 three concrete usage scenarios ('tell me when Steve logs in', 'wait until night is skipped', 'wait for the console to say Done') and notes the timeoutSeconds client constraint. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as get_events for past events, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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