wait_for_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the waiting behavior, the boundary that it never returns a pre-existing code, and the recommended call pattern. It does not describe timeout/error behavior or side effects, but these are partly encoded in the timeoutSeconds parameter and the operation is conceptually read-only. Overall, the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, each contributes distinct information: the operation, the exclusion rule, and the usage timing. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential selection criteria (what it returns, when to call it, and what it ignores). The schema fully documents parameters, and sibling context (latest_code) clarifies the distinction. Minor gaps like timeout behavior are delegated to the schema's timeoutSeconds description, so overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% – every parameter (from, lineId, service, timeoutSeconds) has a description in the input schema. The description only mentions 'line' in passing and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Wait... return') and resource ('a code on a line'), and explicitly contrasts with existing inbox codes ('A code that was already in the inbox... is never returned'), distinguishing it from the sibling latest_code. The purpose is unambiguous and does not require reading the schema.

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 explicit timing advice ('Call this immediately before the step that sends the text, then complete that step while it waits') and describes what it will not do ('a code that was already in the inbox is never returned'), which is an implicit when-not. It does not name the alternative latest_code directly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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