wait_changes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the long-poll nature, instant vs delayed event delivery, and the timeout behavior. It adds transparency about the polling mechanism and latency characteristics, fully informing the agent.

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 with two sentences that front-load the key concept 'Long-poll change feed.' Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage pattern, cursor handling, and latency behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 description adds meaning for 'since' (used for probing cursor) and 'timeout_seconds' (implicitly mentioned as timeout_seconds). However, 'limit' is not explained despite having a default. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a small gap.

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 'Long-poll change feed' and explains it returns events as soon as they exist after a cursor, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_changes which likely provides a batch listing. It specifies the behavior for writes through this server (instant) vs others (~2s), making the purpose precise.

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 usage guidance: 'since=-1 probes the current cursor without replaying history — call that once, then loop with the returned cursor.' It also contrasts with polling loops, making it clear when to use this tool for push semantics.

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