xmpp_wait_for_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that timeout_seconds is clamped to 1..1800 seconds and that a timeout is a normal result, which prepares the agent for possible empty or null returns. It does not cover all behaviors (e.g., whether it consumes the message), but it provides substantial useful detail.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, followed by a single second sentence that adds a critical behavioral note. It is concise with no redundant words or restatement of schema fields, earning top marks.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior (blocking wait, timeout clamping, normal timeout). It leaves some domain context implicit (e.g., what 'allowlisted' means, how to get a cursor), but this is acceptable given sibling tools and schema. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'after_cursor' by referencing 'after a durable cursor' and explains the clamping behavior of 'timeout_seconds'. However, it does not describe 'request_id' at all, and the schema only provides names/types without descriptions. The partial coverage is helpful but not complete.

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 verb ('Wait for') and a precise resource ('next allowlisted message'), along with a positional constraint ('after a durable cursor'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling polling tool 'xmpp_poll_messages' by implying a blocking wait rather than a poll.

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 usage for blocking waits (as opposed to polling) and notes that a timeout is a normal outcome, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like xmpp_poll_messages or state prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a durable cursor). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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