hub_queue_wait

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout return value ({changed:false}), task id handling, the obligation to report outcomes onto tasks, and the local-only deployment constraint. The timeout rationale is also transparently explained.

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 but comprehensive, with every sentence contributing essential context: the long-poll nature, return value, task edge case, deployment constraint, and usage alternative. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers return values, timeout behavior, special task handling, and the correct usage scenario. It is complete for an agent to determine when and how to invoke this tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'role' parameter by explaining it as the queue's subject ('role's queue'), which the schema lacks. The 'timeout' parameter is already well-described in the schema, so the description appropriately references it without redundancy. This compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 the tool blocks until new content arrives in a specified role's queue and returns it, describing it as a 'real long-poll, not a snapshot you have to re-poll.' This verb+resource+mechanism structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like hub_queue_send and hub_queue_wait_all.

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?

Explicit guidance says 'Use this instead of a sleep-and-recheck loop when waiting on an agent to report back via hub_queue_send,' and notes the local/stdio-only availability. It also references hub_queue_send for task semantics, giving clear context on when to choose this tool.

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