BearQ: Wait For Task

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals the blocking nature, the terminal-state conditions, the timeout possibility, and the verbatim SSE event sequence returned. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs to decide if calling this tool is appropriate.

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 tightly packed sentences deliver the core behavior, the trigger conditions, the return shape, and the sibling alternative. The parameter listing is minimal and redundant but harmless. No wasted words.

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 a single parameter, clear blocking semantics, stated return content, and a sibling pointer, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect in response. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit SSE event description.

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% and the description repeats the schema's parameter text ('BearQ task ID') without adding new meaning. No additional format, constraints, or usage nuance is provided beyond what the JSON schema already documents.

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 a specific verb ('Blocks') and resource ('BearQ task'), plus the exact return payload ('full ordered sequence of SSE events... verbatim'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling bearq_get_task_status by framing it as the blocking/long-polling counterpart.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use the tool ('Blocks for the lifetime of the task') and when not to, recommending 'bearq_get_task_status' for a quick check. This gives an agent actionable routing guidance without ambiguity.

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