cs_agent_wait_turn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the types of state changes to wait for (revision, permission request, terminal state), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not detail timeout behavior or return value structure, but enough context is provided for a wait operation.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing usage guidance. There is no redundant information or filler; every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (three scalar parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and when to use it, which is sufficient. The term 'terminal state' is somewhat vague, and there is no mention of return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for a wait tool and the description otherwise covers the essentials.

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%, with each parameter (turnId, waitMs, afterRevision) clearly described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: waiting for a turn revision, permission request, or terminal state. It uses a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('turn'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cs_agent_wait_message by focusing on state transitions rather than reply content.

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 provides usage guidance: 'Use this instead of cs_agent_wait_message when state transitions matter more than reply content.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over an alternative, which is exactly what the dimension requires.

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