wait_for_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: blocking until submit, progress sending, automatic board state flipping, survival across daemon restart, and reconnection failure handling. This covers all critical behaviors an agent needs.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then detailing behaviors. While it is somewhat lengthy, each sentence adds valuable information. Minor redundancy in explaining 'one long call' could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient for the complexity.

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?

The description thoroughly covers behavioral aspects but fails to document the only parameter (timeout_seconds) and does not specify the return value format. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, these omissions reduce completeness to an adequate but not thorough level.

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 input schema has one parameter (timeout_seconds) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description does not explain it at all. The parameter's semantics—such as its effect, default, or format—are absent, forcing the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 primary function: 'Block until the user submits their batched replies/notes on the board, then return them.' It uses a specific verb ('block' and 'return') and identifies the resource ('batched replies/notes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle threads independently.

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: 'Create the threads BEFORE calling this' and advises against polling ('do not poll in a loop'). It explains the blocking nature and default timeout, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare with alternatives, missing a complete usage context.

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