새 댓글 기다리기

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

Annotation only declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: own comments are excluded, the baseline is deliberately NOT advanced, timeout returns timeout:true, and the client timeout prerequisite is spelled out. That is exactly the kind of operational context an agent cannot get from the annotation.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the core behavior (polls until new comments) then layers timeout, baseline, and client-timeout caveats. Every clause carries information, though it is on the long side and would benefit from separation into distinct sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does: it names the changed array fields (author, body, URL, decision) and the timeout:true shape. Combined with the polling prerequisites, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 already documents the three params and their defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral meaning: intervalSec governs the polling cadence and maxWaitSec governs when the timeout return fires, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 verb+resource: it polls and waits for new or modified comments after the 'seen' baseline. It also carves out scope that separates it from siblings (excludes the tool's own comments, and explicitly names wyea_snapshot as the baseline updater). An agent can distinguish this from wyea_check/wyea_status without opening schemas.

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 clear operating guidance: call again on timeout:true, update the baseline via wyea_snapshot after processing, and ensure the client MCP timeout exceeds maxWaitSec. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this versus plain wyea_check, but the polling/wait semantics are unambiguous.

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