wait_for_message

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the long-poll semantics, the return condition, the timeout fallback, and the instance-level clamping of seconds. This is substantial behavioral context that helps the agent predict what will happen.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the behavior, and the second sentence gives the usage recommendation. Every clause earns its place, with no 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 long-polling read tool with full schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is complete. It explains timeout behavior, return semantics, and configuration-aware constraints, leaving no critical gap 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context for the seconds parameter, including default, clamping behavior, and how to discover the ceiling, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 a specific verb and resource: long-poll a room and return once a newer message arrives or after a timeout. It also differentiates itself from repeated polling by emphasizing it is cheaper and faster, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling read tools.

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 explicitly says to prefer this over polling, giving clear usage context. It does not name sibling alternatives such as read_room, and it does not state when not to use it, but the core guidance is unambiguous.

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