Wait for review comments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely important non-obvious trait: a timeout returns status "timeout" rather than raising an error, which changes how an agent should handle the result. It does not restate safety, and the only missing trait (the 55s clamp) is already covered by the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the blocking condition comes first and the timeout return contract second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain the timeout status, which is the critical case. It stops short of describing the shape of a successful return or how to continue waiting from a prior cursor, leaving a modest gap for a blocking tool.

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 schema itself documents branch, cursor, and timeoutMs semantics thoroughly, including the 55-second clamp and the drain-everything behavior of an omitted cursor. The description adds nothing about parameters, so 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 states a specific action (block until a new comment arrives or the wait elapses) on a specific resource, which is more informative than the name alone because it establishes blocking semantics rather than a one-shot fetch. It implicitly contrasts with the polling-style sibling list_comments but never names it, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 blocking behavior implies the scenario (waiting for new review activity instead of repeatedly polling), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no guidance on cursor resumption across calls. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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