bus_wait

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

Without annotations, the description does meaningful work by disclosing the blocking 'long-poll' behavior and the default message filtering (broadcast/addressed to role, excluding own messages). It stops short of explaining timeout behavior or return format, but adds useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key default. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries a heavy burden. The single sentence covers the default filter but omits crucial operational details such as how 'matching' is determined, timeout/polling semantics, return value shape, and error behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only 14%, with just for_me described. The tool description adds a hint about the default for_me behavior and the exclusion of own messages, but leaves the other six parameters (tags, since, timeout, from_sender, poll_interval, exclude_sender) completely unexplained, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 function with a specific verb ('Long-poll until') and resource ('a matching message'). It also adds scope details (defaults to broadcast/addressed messages, excluding own) that help distinguish it from siblings like bus_read or bus_history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to wait for a message rather than immediately read existing ones. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead, so usage context is only partially addressed.

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