Wait for the next bridge message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool blocks, returns as soon as the other agent sends, and cannot wake a chat whose turn has ended. It misses some details such as timeout behavior or return value shape, but the description meaningfully explains the push-style handoff behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add usage, recurrence, mechanism, and a critical limitation. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without repetition or filler.

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 blocking wait tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains when to call, how to chain calls, and the key constraint about not waking ended turns. It could elaborate on timeout behavior or what exactly is returned, but schema covers the timeout default and the 'returned message' is implied, leaving the description reasonably 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?

All parameters have descriptive schema entries, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema, but it does imply relevance via terms like 'matching bridge message' and 'coordination thread.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's lack of additional param explanation is acceptable.

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 function: 'Keep this agent turn alive until a matching bridge message arrives.' It uses a specific verb (keep/block) and resource (bridge message), and explicitly contrasts itself with reading the inbox later, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bridge_inbox.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of ending the turn and later asking the user to tell you to read the inbox.' It also instructs to call bridge_wait again automatically if the coordination thread is active, and warns to enter it before going idle. This clearly frames the tool's intended role among alternatives.

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