moa_wait_turn

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

The description discloses the long-polling behavior and possible return types (turn data, debate complete, timeout with retry). It mentions a safety cap (timeout). However, it lacks details on error conditions, cancellation behavior, or side effects. Given no annotations, it provides adequate but not comprehensive transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core behavior and return types. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 long-polling tool with multiple return types and no output schema, the description covers the main outcomes. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, error handling, or how to interpret the returned fields. It is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100% with brief descriptions for both required parameters. The description does not add extra context beyond the schema, such as where to obtain task_id or agent_id, or what 'preset agents' means. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 that the tool long-polls until the agent's turn, specifying the resource (agent's turn) and action (wait). It is distinguishable from sibling tools which are about initialization, starting, submitting, completing, or status. However, it could be more explicit about distinguishing itself from moa_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as moa_status. It does not mention prerequisites like needing to have started a debate or that this should be called after moa_start_debate.

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