mdr_wait

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

The description thoroughly discloses the blocking nature, timeout (90s), return values on timeout ({status:"pending"}) and completion ({status:"done"}), and the expected follow-up action ('read the file(s) to see the user's replies...'). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and handles it excellently.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose, the second giving usage context, and the third covering timeout and post-completion actions. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple wait tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the behavior, return values, retry logic, and what to do after completion. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema coverage for sessionId is 100%, and the description repeats the schema description ('Session ID returned by mdr_review'). It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 purpose: 'Block until the user has finished engaging with an mdr_review session.' It uses a specific verb (block/wait) and resource (mdr_review session), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mdr_review (which posts feedback) and mdr_ask (which likely asks questions).

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 states when to call the tool: 'Call this once after you have posted all your feedback batches via mdr_review.' It also provides guidance on timeout behavior and retry: 'If the wait times out (90s), returns {status:"pending"} — call mdr_wait again...' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the context is clear.

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