agent_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Wait,' but does not disclose blocking behavior, timeout handling, or how it interacts with parameters like wait_seconds and auto_claim_roles. It also does not explain what happens when no pending messages exist.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and a single-sentence description, the tool lacks important context. The output schema exists, but the description does not cover usage guidelines, behavioral nuances, or parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly in varied situations.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. While the parameter names (limit, wait_seconds, auto_claim_roles) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about their purpose or interactions, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Wait' and clearly identifies the resource as 'pending chat messages' for the authenticated participant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_send and agent_reply, which involve outgoing messages, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to wait for incoming chat messages, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use criteria or mention alternatives such as agent_notifications or agent_history. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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