wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly states it sleeps for seconds (fractions allowed, capped at 300) and returns. This is transparent for a simple wait tool. Could mention that it blocks execution, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 zero waste. The first sentence defines the action and constraints. The second sentence provides critical usage context. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. An agent has all needed information to select and invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the seconds parameter fully. The description repeats the constraints ('fractions ok, capped at 300') already in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sleep') and resource ('a number of seconds'), notes the cap and fractions, and distinguishes from sibling tools like wait_for_text and wait_for_boot by stating it is for 'TIME-based conditions' where polling doesn't apply.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use this tool: 'backgrounding an app long enough to trip a native auth timer, waiting out a cooldown or rate limit, letting a long animation finish.' Also directly contrasts with wait_for_text's polling approach, providing clear context vs. alternatives.

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