Wait For Message

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

Discloses polling duration (up to 25s), return types (matching message with attachment metadata or no_message), and clean exit for retries. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so description adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and behavior. No redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

Core behavior is well-covered: polling, timeout, return types. With 9 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently sets expectations for a waiting tool, though could mention the polling interval or retry mechanism.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds little beyond schema (mentions 'attachment metadata' indirectly), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states verb 'wait for new mail' with resource 'mailbox' and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing polling instead of manual polling. Specific behavior (up to 25 seconds, returns message or no_message) makes purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides context 'instead of manual polling' which implies usage scenario, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools. However, given sibling tools are non-polling, the guidance is sufficient.

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