wait_for_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout semantics, the two possible non-message return states, and the required follow-up action. This goes well beyond the tool name and schema by explaining exactly how to behave in the conversation loop.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: one states the core action, two define return states, and one gives the practical usage rule. The most important information is front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, what to do on idle, what to do on closed, and how to stay in the conversation. No critical behavior is left unexplained.

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 100% and the single parameter already explains timeout duration plus default and maximum in the schema. The description does not need to add further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Block until the peer posts, then return their message.' It clearly distinguishes this from non-blocking siblings by emphasizing the blocking wait and the return contract, making the tool's unique role 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 gives clear usage guidance: call it again on idle, treat 'closed' as a stop signal, and do not end the turn while the room is open. It stops short of explicitly comparing against alternatives like read_room or room_status, so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the intended usage pattern is well communicated.

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