await_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains response guarantees, such as doc appearing in every response, immediate return even outside history retention, timedOut behavior, changes grouping into count, and the non-guarantees around activity and priority. This is far beyond minimal transparency.

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 dense and not structured with headings, but nearly every sentence conveys a distinct behavioral or return-value detail that is necessary because no output schema exists. It is front-loaded with the most common use mode, and while a bit wall-of-text-like, it avoids redundancy.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description does an unusually complete job. It explains return fields, edge cases such as truncated and timedOut, grouping behavior for changes, and the meaning of activity. An agent has enough information 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic guidance beyond the schema: sinceRevision must be passed as an observed string, omitting it returns the current doc immediately, and until narrows the operations waited on. That extra context justifies a 4.

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 that the tool waits for commits after a given revision and returns immediately if changes already exist, or fetches the current doc and revision when sinceRevision is omitted. This specific verb-plus-resource behavior clearly separates it from the write-oriented sibling tools like set_text and set_settings.

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 clear parameter-driven usage context: omit sinceRevision to get the current state, provide it to wait for subsequent commits, and use until to filter which operations to wait for. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is strong.

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