agenthold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it blocks the agent's turn (no other actions possible), includes timeout handling with default values, explains response outcomes ('available' and 'timeout'), and warns about concurrency risks ('another agent may also be waiting'). It does not detail error cases or retry logic, but covers the core operational traits well.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds critical information (blocking behavior, usage warning, timeout details, response outcomes) without redundancy. It efficiently conveys necessary details in a structured manner.

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 tool's complexity (blocking wait with concurrency) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a strong job covering key aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, and outcomes. It explains the two possible responses but does not detail the response structure or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (resource identifier and timeout with default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the timeout default and hint field on timeout. It does not provide additional semantic context or usage examples for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('wait for a resource to become available', 'blocks your turn') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on waiting rather than claiming, registering, releasing, or checking status. It explicitly mentions the resource constraint and timeout mechanism.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only use this when you need a specific resource and no other useful work can proceed without it') and when not to use it (implied by the warning about blocking). It also references the sibling tool agenthold_claim as the next step after availability, offering clear alternatives in the workflow.

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