Feedback Wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it explains blocking behavior, immediate return when already sent, timeout defaults and maximums, STILL WRITING versus SENT states, how to call again after a timeout, and an extra delay for clips. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for an async wait 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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then layers in timeout, after, and clip-delay details without wasted sentences. It is dense but appropriately sized for a complex waiting tool.

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 no-annotation async tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: blocking, timeout, resumption, return states, and after semantics. The only meaningful gap is that the project parameter is not described.

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 explains timeout_s (default 180, max 3600), after (ISO SENT time for waiting on a later Send), and round (a feedback_page round), but it never explains the project parameter. Three of four parameters are covered well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: waits for Send on a feedback_page round and returns answers headed SENT. It explicitly distinguishes itself from feedback_read and from writing a polling loop, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: use it when a feedback page is out and you are waiting for the person's answers. It also explains the immediate-return case and the after parameter for late additions, which routes the agent correctly without needing an alternative tool.

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