wait_for_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: blocking semantics, server-side session persistence across calls, no cancellation on truncation, status expansion, and automatic window reload behavior. However, it contradicts the input-schema default for timeout_seconds (description says 'never time out' by default; schema says 'default 1800'). This inconsistency creates agent-facing ambiguity about the actual default wait behavior.

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 paragraph is long and dense but nearly every clause carries a distinct behavioral rule spanning multiple statuses and call-pattern scenarios, so the length is justified. Core blocking behavior and default timeout are front-loaded, but the wall of text could be better structured into bullets or status-to-action pairs for faster parsing.

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-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return shape, per-status meaning, follow-up actions, and session persistence — essentially everything needed for correct invocation. The only substantive gap is the timeout-default contradiction with the schema, which leaves an agent uncertain about the real server-side default.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: when and why to pass timeout_seconds (client call limits), what to do if the call is truncated (call the tool again), and that session_id must be forwarded into apply_edit/template_replace/find_replace/restore_version. The added value is slightly offset by the timeout-default contradiction with the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: blocks waiting for an annotation session to complete and returns the user's submitted annotations. Explicitly lists the return shape and all possible status values (done | cancelled | closed | timeout), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling edit/apply tools like apply_edit or find_replace. No tautology and no ambiguity.

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?

Provides exhaustive when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: call again after processing done-annotations, do not call again when status is closed (user-initiated) or done with empty annotations, and only ask the user about reopening for window_lost/agent_cancelled/agent_exited. It also instructs passing session_id into sibling tools and when to set timeout_seconds for client-limited calls. This is textbook-level usage guidance with explicit exclusions and alternatives.

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