cs_agent_wait_message

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: it returns a terminal reply, a permission request requiring cs_agent_respond_permission, a terminal turn without a reply, or a bounded timeout. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies blocking and return semantics.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose and alternative, the second lists possible outcomes. Every sentence is informative with no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple tool, complete schema parameter descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It explains behavior (blocking), outcomes (reply/permission/terminal/timeout), and next steps (respond_permission), making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description references the turn from cs_agent_send but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Preferred blocking wait after cs_agent_send for one turn,' specifying the action (blocking wait), resource (message/turn), and relationship to send. It also distinguishes from cs_agent_wait_many, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly says 'Preferred blocking wait after cs_agent_send for one turn' and instructs to use cs_agent_wait_many for multiple turns after sending all independent turns. This provides direct when-to-use and alternative-selection guidance.

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