wait_for_request

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

The description discloses the blocking behavior and timeout result, but with no annotations, it falls short on details like side effects, idempotency, or whether it can be cancelled. The timeout parameter is mentioned implicitly but not fully explained.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is borderline under-specified. Every word earns its place, but it lacks context for effective tool invocation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for a blocking tool with three parameters. It fails to explain what the timeout result looks like, how to interpret the response, or that the call is long-running.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (inbox_id, timeout_seconds, since). With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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 the tool blocks until a new webhook arrives or returns a timeout result. The verb 'wait' matches the tool name, and the resource 'request' is implied. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_webhook_inbox' (creation) and 'inspect_request' (inspection).

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 implies usage as a blocking wait for new webhooks, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'list_requests' or 'replay_request'. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., create inbox first) or when not to use it.

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