team_time_wait_agent_reply

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: a 10-second per-call cap bounded by the original server deadline, prompt return on reply/timeout/incoming question, and a one-minute cumulative budget. It does not describe what the returned reply or question payload looks like, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct rule, with the per-call cap front-loaded before the loop guidance. Nothing is redundant or restated from the schema.

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?

The behavioral picture of the wait is complete enough to drive a polling loop, but with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the identity of the three required parameters unexplained. For a tool whose correctness depends on tracking messageId/runId across iterations, that is a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters (messageId, installationId, runId, seconds) are explained in the description. The mention of 'at most 10 seconds per call' indirectly hints at the seconds parameter's ceiling, but the three required UUID identifiers are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 makes clear this is a bounded wait/poll for an agent reply, with the verb ('wait') and the resource (agent reply) stated. It distinguishes itself implicitly from fetch-style siblings like team_time_get_agent_message or team_time_reply_agent_message by emphasizing blocking behavior, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives concrete operational rules for the polling loop: 'Process incoming questions before waiting again' and 'Never wait more than one minute total.' That is real when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't state when to skip waiting entirely (e.g. go read the inbox or call get_agent_message directly).

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