wait_for_reply

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

With no annotations, the description discloses blocking behavior, return values, and timeout, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., modifying state) or the polling mechanism, though param descriptions cover polling interval.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value—defining behavior and providing usage guidance.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains blocking, conditions, return values, and timeout behavior. It lacks explicit mention of polling frequency but covers it in the `poll_seconds` parameter description.

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%; the tool description reinforces the use of `since_ts` and `timeout_seconds` but adds little new information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it blocks until a thread reply is posted after `since_ts` or timeout, and contrasts with sibling tools like ask_review and wait_for_review by specifying usage after ask_review timeout.

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 explicitly advises using this tool after ask_review timed out, providing clear context for when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with all siblings.

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