wait_for_reply

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it blocks until a new message arrives or timeout expires, only returns non-self messages (others' replies), and specifies the default and maximum timeout. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a detailed block explaining behavior, a usage suggestion, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers input parameters, blocking behavior, and usage context. It does not explicitly state what happens on timeout (e.g., returns empty list), but the behavior is implied. Slightly incomplete but sufficient.

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%, but the docstring's Args section adds clear explanations for each parameter: target (Group ID or friend QQ ID), target_type (group/private), timeout (max 300s). This compensates well beyond the schema's minimal type/default info.

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 purpose: 'Wait for a new reply/message from a target.' It specifies the verb 'wait' and the resource 'reply/message', and distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message and get_recent_context by explaining it is used after sending a message to await a reply.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this after send_message to wait for the other person's reply.' It implies when not to use (not for self-messages) but does not mention alternative tools like get_recent_context for retrieving history without waiting.

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