wechat_wait

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds little beyond 'Wait for ...'. It does not describe whether the tool blocks, how it returns, or what triggers completion. With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still lacks behavioral details.

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 very short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information, so it is not effectively condensed.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain key concepts like 'delta', 'smart context', or how parameters interact. The tool is likely complex, but the description provides almost no value.

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 0%, meaning the description explains none of the 4 parameters. The schema itself has constraints (e.g., default values, min/max), but the description adds no meaning for 'chat', 'after', 'context', or 'timeoutMs'. This is a critical 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 states 'Wait for one chat's delta and smart context,' which identifies the action (wait) and resource (chat's delta and context). However, 'delta' and 'smart context' are vague and not clearly defined. It differentiates somewhat from siblings wechat_read and wechat_status by implying a waiting/blocking behavior.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like wechat_read or wechat_status. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or 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.