bridge_wait

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the waiting mechanism (after since_id or durable cursor) and caps timeout at 55 seconds, which directly informs call behavior. The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover safety, and the description complements them without contradiction.

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?

Exactly two sentences with no filler. The core guidance ('use instead of repeated polling') is front-loaded, and the timeout constraint is concise and essential.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return format. It covers the primary usage pattern (waiting after a cursor), the key cap (55s), and the polling alternative. The anyOf logic (since_id vs consumer_id) is inferable from the wording. Only minor gaps like limit semantics remain, but these are self-evident from the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains since_id and consumer_id (the two trigger parameters) and mentions the timeout cap (relating to timeout_seconds), but does not explain limit or channel. Since those have defaults and are straightforward, partial compensation is acceptable but not complete.

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 waits for new messages, anchored by since_id or a consumer cursor. It names the resource and verb ('Wait efficiently for new messages'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from polling, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like bridge_receive.

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 recommends using this instead of repeated polling, which provides a clear alternative. It does not define when not to use it (e.g., when immediate reply is needed), but the guidance is actionable and unambiguous.

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