moa_board_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the polling behavior, return contract (ready, timeout, closed), default 25-minute safety cap, the MOAMCP_WAIT_CAP_MS environment variable, timeoutMs override, and the archived-scope case. This is comprehensive for a wait operation.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then compactly detail return statuses, timeout behavior, and tuning. No filler words or repetition of schema content.

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 output schema exists, so the description supplies the return statuses and their conditions. It covers timeout, archived scope, and configuration variables, providing enough context for an agent to invoke and interpret the result 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?

Schema coverage is 80%. The description adds value by clarifying that the key must have a value to wake, and it supplements timeoutMs with the environment variable and default cap context that the schema does not include. The 'since' semantics are already well described in the schema.

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 the tool performs long-polling until a key has a value, or until the entry is strictly newer than a given since timestamp, and it lists the distinct return statuses. This clearly separates it from sibling board read/write/list/delete tools, which are immediate operations.

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?

The description makes the use case explicit: block until a board entry exists or updates. It mentions the timeout cap and tuning options, but it does not name alternative tools (e.g., moa_board_read for immediate reads) or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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