waitForNextTurn

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does reveal the blocking nature and timeout. However, it doesn't state what happens when the 30-second wait expires, whether it can be polled repeatedly, or what information it returns. The 'User's turn via Agent proxy' phrasing adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core blocking behavior, and includes the critical timeout detail. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and timeout. However, the lack of an output schema and the absence of any statement about timeout behavior or return value leaves a notable gap. The ambiguity around 'User's turn via Agent proxy' also reduces completeness.

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 only parameter, game_id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra semantic detail about how game_id is used beyond the schema, so the 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: it blocks until the Agent's turn, with a 30-second wait for the opponent. The verb 'blocks' and the resource 'turn' make the operation understandable, and it is distinct from siblings like finishTurn or joinGame, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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 implies this should be used when waiting for an opponent after your turn, and mentions the 30-second timeout. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, nor what to do if the timeout elapses. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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