session_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the load. It discloses blocking behavior, resumability, timeout semantics, auto_compact behavior, return fields, and even edge cases like baseline lost and question field. This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening purpose, bolded 'Resumable' for key behavior, and concise paragraphs for parameters and return values. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting enhances scannability without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains all return fields and edge cases. It covers the tool's complexity (timeout, resumability, auto-compact) and is complete for a blocking wait operation. Given the sibling context, it is fully sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'timeout' with max 3600 and its timeout behavior, and 'auto_compact_at' with an example and effect. 'name' is not explicitly described, but its purpose is clear from context (session name). Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Block until the session finishes its pending work, then return the answer' and explicitly calls it 'the completion trigger,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_send or session_tail. The verb 'block' and resource 'session' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is the completion trigger—implying use after dispatching work—and provides guidance on resumability ('just call it again') and timeout behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list scenarios where another tool should be used, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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