wait_for_request

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the call blocks and should be started before triggering the app action. However, it does not explain what happens on timeout, whether the request is consumed, or why the annotations include destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted text. The blocking behavior and operational sequencing are front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 core behavior and workflow are covered, but for a blocking tool with a required timeout and no output schema, the description omits important context such as timeout failure behavior and the shape of the returned request.

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 description coverage is already 80%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description only says the URL matches, without adding detail about method, status, since_seconds, or timeout_seconds behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it blocks until a matching request completes and returns that request. This is clear and distinct from immediate retrieval tools like get_request, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling wait_for_breakpoint.

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 gives a clear usage pattern: start this tool, then trigger the action in the app. That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use it.

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