wait_for_inbox

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the two key traits of blocking-until-delivery and immediate return when messages are present. It omits what happens when timeout_ms elapses (empty result vs. error) and whether returned messages are consumed/removed, which matters for a wait tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences with the wait semantics front-loaded and the immediate-return caveat second. No filler; only the redundant parenthetical slightly duplicates the 'event-driven' claim.

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?

Hmm — with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is nonetheless complete enough to call correctly: trigger conditions, blocking behavior, and the immediate-return case are all stated. Its remaining gap is the post-timeout return shape, which is a minor omission given the 100%-documented parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so session_id, timeout_ms and mark_as_read are already fully documented with defaults. The description adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.

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 ('wait') and resource ('inbox' delivery from background child sessions), and the parenthetical 'no polling needed' separates it from the polling sibling check_inbox. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

Clearly conveys the usage context: use when you want to block on delivery rather than poll, and it warns that the call returns immediately if unread messages already exist. It gives no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion or named alternative, so it lands at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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