wait_for_mention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool blocks, includes full channel state in the payload, and requires repeated calls with no background watcher. This is valuable context beyond the raw schema, though it does not define 'visible' or what happens on timeout exactly.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core wait condition in the first sentence and practical usage context in the second. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 the main behavior, return payload, and repeated-call usage pattern. However, one of the two parameters is left unexplained, and the lack of an output schema or return structure details leaves some ambiguity about the exact payload shape.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions timeout_ms in the wait condition, but wake_on_any_new_message is never explained. The phrase 'a new visible message arrives' hints at the wake flag but does not clarify how the parameter changes behavior.

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 a specific waiting behavior: block until mentioned, a new visible message arrives, or timeout_ms elapses. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_message and read_state, which either send or read state rather than wait.

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 practical usage guidance: after it returns, keep working and call again between steps, and notes there is no background watcher. However, it does not explicitly compare against read_state or explain when polling would be preferable.

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