hub_queue_wait_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains blocking behavior, return shapes on both success and timeout, that it uses its own offset bookkeeping, and critically that it 'does NOT consume/steal messages' — a key non-destructive trait. It also states the 'Local/stdio only' restriction, providing complete behavioral context.

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?

Four sentences deliver maximum substance with zero filler. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and its non-consuming behavior. The most critical action phrase is front-loaded, and the content is well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully documents the return values ({changed, events} with role/node tagging, or {changed:false}). It also covers timeout semantics, non-destructive behavior, and platform restriction. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, this is complete.

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 100% for the single timeout parameter, and the schema already documents the default (45), max (540), and the client-timeout caveat. The tool description adds behavioral context about blocking and timeout returns, but does not need to elaborate the parameter syntax, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Subscribe to EVERY role's queue at once and block until new content lands in ANY of them.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling hub_queue_wait by explicitly saying 'instead of calling hub_queue_wait per role.' The purpose is unambiguous and unique.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('for an orchestrator reacting to whichever agent reports first') and names two alternatives it replaces ('instead of calling hub_queue_wait per role or ssh-ing into each host to poll'). This is explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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