watch_wait

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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it waits (blocking), claims a delivery, and returns a null delivery on timeout. It also discloses scoping constraints. Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior, so the description does not need to restate that, and it does not contradict them.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds necessary information: what it does, what it never does, and what happens on timeout.

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 description covers primary behavior and timeout output, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it does not describe the success return shape or any prerequisites or lifecycle relationship with tools like watch_start. For a blocking claim operation, an agent would benefit from knowing what a successful response contains.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains duty_id as the delivery's addressing target, and timeout is implied by 'A timeout returns...' rather than being explicitly tied to the timeout parameter with units or default behavior. The schema supplies the default, but the description leaves part of the timeout semantics implicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for and claim only the next delivery addressed to this duty_id.' It also clearly scopes the operation by stating what it never returns, distinguishing it from queue-wide or cross-session tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is for claiming the next duty-specific delivery and waiting for it. It also communicates exclusions—never another session's delivery, unaddressed messages, or a global queue—which helps an agent avoid choosing it for those cases, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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