umouse_wait_events

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses blocking/timeout behavior (empty return + timedOut:true), warns that the host may enforce a shorter timeout than the schema max of 30000 and recommends keeping a single call under 25000ms, and explains the nextSince cursor for multi-round continuation. It also distinguishes which types are server-generated (speechCaptured, sleepReset) and what origin/transport-down mean for meeting events — behavioral context an agent could not derive from the 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?

Front-loaded correctly with the core behavior, and little is pure filler — the type catalog and host-timeout warning are genuinely load-bearing. But it is delivered as one dense paragraph with ~20 enumerated types inline, making it hard to scan; the per-type notes (e.g. meeting event origins, sleepReset semantics) sit at the same visual weight as the critical timeout guidance.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain returns — it does so partially, revealing timedOut:true, nextSince, and payload contents for speechCaptured/keyEvent, but never states the overall response envelope (e.g. the array/count field names or how multiple events are ordered). Adequate for correct invocation, slightly short of complete.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: 'since' is tied to the returned nextSince cursor, 'types' is illustrated with concrete filter values and their payload contracts, and timeout_ms is given a practical ceiling (<25000) that is stricter than the schema's 30000 maximum. Only the pagination/continuation mechanics of the cursor remain slightly implicit.

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+resource combination ('long-poll wait for new device events') and pins down the semantics: immediate return on match, empty result with timedOut:true on timeout. It does not name the obvious siblings (umouse_get_events, umouse_wait_voice), so an agent must infer the blocking-vs-nonblocking distinction rather than being told.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'the standard tool for waiting on user physical operations' and gives two concrete recommended patterns (speech → types:["speechCaptured"], key → types:["keyEvent"]) with payload shapes for each. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to use umouse_get_events or umouse_wait_voice instead, or what to do when no relevant type exists.

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