wait_turn

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the blocking nature, the timeout result (your_turn=false), and that re-calling is safe. It does not describe failure modes like invalid seat_token, but core runtime behavior is well specified.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by actionable timeout handling and a practical caveat. No filler or 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?

Covers the main wait-retry loop, timeout semantics, and the critical timeout_s constraint. It does not explain where seat_token comes from or the exact game-end observation, but these are minor for a simple blocking tool with a clear sibling set (join provides the token).

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. It adds meaningful guidance for timeout_s ('keep below your client's tool timeout') but says nothing about table or seat_token beyond their self-explanatory names. Since two of three parameters lack semantic elaboration, the description falls short for low coverage.

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 ('Block'), the resource ('your seat's turn'), and the three exit conditions (turn, game end, timeout). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like observe or act, which are non-blocking state reads/writes.

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?

It explicitly advises calling wait_turn when it is not your turn, and instructs to call it again on timeout. It also gives a concrete usage constraint to keep timeout_s below the client's tool timeout. It does not name alternatives, but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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