Wait for the next annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the call blocks with a timeout bound, and each new annotation is delivered to exactly one waiting agent so concurrent watchers never duplicate work. It does not say what happens on timeout (empty result vs error) or whether any auth/session is required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior and followed immediately by the loop pattern and the concurrency guarantee. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a returned annotation looks like and what a timeout yields — it covers the former only implicitly ('Each new annotation is handed to...') and leaves timeout return behavior unstated. The core blocking semantics are otherwise well covered.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema already documents the bounds (1–600) and the 120-second default, giving 100% schema coverage. The description only alludes to it via '(or timeout)' and adds no format or override guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb and blocking semantics: 'Block until the developer adds a new annotation in the browser (or timeout).' The blocking, exactly-once delivery model cleanly separates it from the polling siblings (get_pending_annotations, list_annotations) without needing to name 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?

It names the scenario it exists for — a live 'watch' loop ('wait → apply → resolve → wait') — which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the non-blocking alternatives (get_pending_annotations, recheck_annotation), so the 'when not to use' side is left to inference.

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