wait_for_mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the wake condition (counter grows above the entry state, not backlog), that backlog is surfaced as pending_at_entry and deliberately not a wake reason, the empty-wait return shape ({timed_out: true, retry: true}), the 50s per-call cap chosen to sit below MCP client timeouts, and the loop-to-wait-longer pattern with 'nothing is lost between calls.'

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?

Front-loaded with the core behaviour before the rationale, and most sentences add real information. The justification for ignoring backlog runs long ('a role with one open round it is deliberately postponing would otherwise be woken instantly, every time...'), which is padding an agent does not strictly need.

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 blocking-wait primitive with no annotations, 0% param coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing safety/mutability context, the return contract, and the retry pattern. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains ignore_backlog semantics and default clearly, and ties the 50s cap to timeout_s. poll_interval_s is left unexplained, which is a minor gap given its obvious name and the otherwise strong 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?

States a specific action (sleep inside the channel) and a specific trigger class (any NEW event: mail, obligation, proposal, resolution), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wait_for_reply by scope ('this waits for any event'). An agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when: 'Use it when you have finished your own work and want to stay available to the partner instead of ending the turn.' It also names the alternative and the condition that separates them (wait_for_reply = one message; this = any event), and explains the ignore_backlog=false escape hatch for the legacy immediate-return behaviour.

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