mdr_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states that the call blocks, that the timeout is 90 seconds, that a timeout returns {status:'pending'}, that it may be retried, and that a done status should be followed by reading files for user edits. No contradictions with schema or annotations.

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 carry essential information: purpose, timeout/retry behavior, and post-done follow-up. The most important verb is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the blocking behavior, both possible return statuses, the retry loop, and the subsequent action of reading files. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and handle this tool correctly is missing.

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% and already explains sessionId as 'Session ID returned by mdr_comment.' The tool description reinforces using the same sessionId on retry, a small behavioral addition, but not enough to raise the score above the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Block until the user has finished engaging with an mdr_comment session.' It clearly distinguishes itself from mdr_comment and sibling tools by positioning mdr_wait as the follow-up wait step after feedback batches are posted.

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 gives explicit sequencing: 'Call this once after you have posted all your feedback batches via mdr_comment.' It also specifies the retry pattern on timeout ('call mdr_wait again with the same sessionId') and what to do after done, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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