wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing fractional seconds, the 300-second cap, the blocking 'sleep then return' behavior, and the subtle warning that agent round-trips perturb native timers. It does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, but for a sleep tool this is fairly self-evident.

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 sentences with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases and a clear alternative. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or boilerplate.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains behavior, constraints, appropriate use cases, and the preferred alternative for timing-sensitive sequences. No critical information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the `seconds` parameter. The description repeats 'fractions ok; capped at 300' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 action ('Sleep for a number of seconds'), the resource (seconds), and the outcome ('then return'). It actively distinguishes itself from wait_for_text by explaining that it covers TIME-based conditions where polling does not apply, and from run_sequence for timing-critical flows.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios: backgrounding an app to trip native auth timers, waiting out cooldowns/rate limits, and letting long animations finish. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use instruction by redirecting inter-step timing-sensitive sleeps to run_sequence.

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