control_wait_prompt

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that the call blocks ('Long-poll') and enumerates the return fields. It omits what happens on timeout expiry (empty result, error, or retry), whether calls must be serialized per client, and any concurrency assumptions for a multi-client loop primitive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior and the return contract, with no redundant restatement of the schema. 'Candidate counters' is left undefined, which costs a small amount of clarity without adding bulk.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return values, and it does list them, but 'candidate counters' and 'what kind of decision' remain vague. Combined with the absence of annotations and no timeout-result semantics, a loop primitive that an agent will call repeatedly is described adequately but not completely.

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 both 'since' and 'timeout_ms' documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting for a baseline of 3. The description adds only the linkage that the returned seq feeds control_act, not additional meaning for 'since' (e.g., resumption semantics after a gap) or timeout behavior.

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 concrete action ('Long-poll until it is this client's turn to respond') and names the returned payload (seq, curMsg, candidate counters), so the resource and effect are identifiable. It also hints at its position relative to control_act, though undefined terms like 'prompt' and 'candidate counters' keep it from fully distinguishing itself from siblings such as control_ready or control_state.

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?

'This is the main agent loop primitive' implies this is the default entry point into the loop, and mentioning that seq is passed back to control_act gives a concrete usage path. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it differs from control_ready/control_state/control_lobby, and no stated prerequisites.

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