wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It clearly discloses the action: waits for a duration and then returns. It implies blocking behavior and no side effects, which is complete for a simple non-destructive tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the essential action, and no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place, delivering clear instruction without verbosity.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters (fully described in schema) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and implicitly covers behavioral expectations. No additional context is needed.

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%; both parameters ('seconds' and 'reason') have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Wait for a specified duration before returning.' It uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('specified duration'), and the purpose is unmistakable. With no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to pause between retries when polling for a condition' and provides concrete examples (PR approval, Slack response, file creation). This gives excellent usage context, though alternative tools are not mentioned (not necessary here).

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