Wait for anything to change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the long-poll blocking behavior, the return of changed threads with old and new state, and the timeout condition. It does not specify exact behavior on timeout (e.g., empty list) but covers the main behavioral aspects well.

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 concise: two sentences that each earn their place. The first explains the mechanics; the second adds the real-world use case. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is quite complete. It covers the wait condition, return value, timeout, and a use case. It could mention what happens on timeout explicitly, but the timeout behavior is implied and the description is sufficiently informative for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter timeoutSeconds is fully described in the schema (including range and default), so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions timeout only generally and does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: long-poll the workspace until any thread changes attention state or timeout. It gives specific examples (turn finishes, approval appears, error occurs) and distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_turn by focusing on 'any thread'.

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?

A clear use case is provided ('Lets a voice loop stay silent until something actually happens'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the 'any thread' phrasing contrasts with wait_for_turn.

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