message_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well by disclosing the deterministic failure shape (ok:false, code=MIGRATED), so an agent knows calling it is pointless. It stops short of saying whether the tool is still callable at all or will be removed, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, migration status and replacement named first, mechanical outcome second. No filler.

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 zero-parameter deprecation shim with an output schema present, this is fully sufficient: it tells the agent what it is, what it returns, and where to go instead. Nothing needed to decide whether to invoke it is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 exactly what the tool is (a migrated/deprecated stub) and what it does when called (always returns ok:false code=MIGRATED). It also names the two replacement tools, so an agent can distinguish this from event_wait and inbox_count without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives and gives the selecting condition for each: inbox_count for cheap polling, event_wait for explicit blocking. Effectively a when-not-to-use instruction, which is the strongest form of guidance.

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