wait_for_events

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the wait runs in bridge, game thread keeps running, same response shape as poll_events with a 'timed_out' field, default timeout, hard cap, and clamping behavior for over-cap requests.

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?

Three sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds implementation detail, the third describes response and constraints. No wasted words.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is comprehensive: covers purpose, behavior, parameter trade-offs, response shape, and constraints. No obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds semantic value beyond schema by explaining the trade-off for poll_interval_ms (latency vs. round trips) and reiterates clamping behavior, providing moderate additional guidance.

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 it is a 'Bridge-side composition of poll_events' that polls until events arrive or timeout, specifying the resource (events) and distinguishing it from poll_events by explaining the wrapper behavior.

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 explains when to use (to wait for events) and contrasts with poll_events, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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