wait_channel_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true list, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the key behavioral trait of waiting for observed activity followed by quiet, but it does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., what happens if no activity occurs, how 'quiet' is determined, or if there are side effects). With no output schema and limited details, the description leaves important behavioral nuances unstated.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose and key condition ('never infers completion'). It is exceptionally concise while conveying the primary logic.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of each parameter, the behavior in failure or timeout cases, or what the return value represents. An agent would need to guess how to set idle_ms and timeout_ms or interpret the outcome, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 4 parameters. It mentions none of the parameter names (channel_id, after_cursor, idle_ms, timeout_ms) or their purpose beyond the general 'wait' concept. An agent cannot infer what each parameter controls (e.g., idle_ms for quiet period, timeout_ms for max wait) solely from the description, making it inadequate for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('wait for') and a resource ('Channel snapshot activity') with a clear qualifier ('never infers completion'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_channel or read_channel, which are likely immediate reads, by implying a time-based waiting behavior. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it loses a point for not explicitly differentiating.

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 implies usage in scenarios where the agent needs to observe activity in a channel and wait for a quiet period, contrasting with direct reads from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the context from the vague phrase 'never infers completion'.

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