wait_for_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the blocking behavior and that it waits for specific event types or timeout. It could be more explicit about what happens on timeout (e.g., returns empty) but the overall behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and timeout behavior. It could mention what it returns, but the phrasing 'Long-poll for events' implies the return value, and the context signals indicate low complexity.

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 already covers the single 'timeout' parameter with a description and default/max values, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Long-poll') and resource ('events'), and elaborates with event types ('message, timer, agent completion, etc.'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_events by emphasizing the blocking behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use in a loop for continuous event handling'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the blocking nature implicitly contrasts with event-fetching tools.

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