hub_queue_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses blocking behavior, long-poll semantics, timeout fallback ({changed:false}), and the local-only constraint. It does not clarify whether the returned content is consumed/dequeued, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action (Block until...), immediately explains the key behavioral distinction (real long-poll, not a snapshot), and packs availability and usage guidance into separate clear sentences.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow: blocking wait, timeout behavior, return values in the timeout case, and availability constraints. It stops short of describing the exact shape of a successful return payload, which would make it fully complete without an output schema.

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 coverage is 50%: 'timeout' is richly described in the schema, while 'role' has no schema description. The description gives partial meaning to 'role' via "<role>'s queue" but does not fully compensate for the missing role parameter documentation or specify input format/enum/options.

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 lands in a role's queue and returns it, with explicit long-poll scope details. It is specific about the resource (queue) and behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 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?

The description explicitly recommends using this instead of a sleep-and-recheck loop when waiting for an agent to report via hub_queue_send. It also clearly warns that this is local/stdio only and not available on the shared HTTP server, providing strong when/where guidance.

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