wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the push mechanism rather than a polling loop, which is real behavioral context. But it says nothing about how long the call blocks, whether there is a timeout, whether it can be cancelled, or whether the wait is blocking-only — significant gaps for a blocking call.

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?

A single short sentence with the mechanism front-loaded in the parenthetical and zero wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 and no annotations, so the description must cover more ground. It does not say what is returned when a message arrives (the message itself?), nor what happens on timeout or connection loss, nor whether it blocks the caller. For a blocking, output-less-schema tool this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate or compensate for.

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 ('Wait') and the resource condition ('until a new message arrives'), and the parenthetical '(push, no polling)' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'poll' tool. It stops short of naming 'poll' explicitly, but the contrast is clear enough for selection.

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 phrase 'until a new message arrives' implies the use case (block until inbound activity) and the 'no polling' note hints at when to prefer this over the 'poll' sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of blocking duration or timeout behavior, and no conditions under which an agent should pick a different sibling.

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