wake_wait

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

Goes well beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation: it discloses the adapter-side poll loop with backoff, that no server request stays open, the take/ack semantics that consume the event when consume:true and redeliver otherwise, and the terminal-watch behavior returning triggered false. These are exactly the mutation and lifecycle traits an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core blocking behavior, then progressively adds poll mechanics, consume/redelivery semantics, and return shape. It is dense and sentence-heavy, but nearly every clause carries operational information; minor tightening would help.

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 compensates by specifying the return value: a tiny event reference (type + resource + why + next) rather than a content dump, or triggered false with watch status. Combined with consume/cancel guidance, it is complete for correct invocation.

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%, so both wakeId and timeoutSeconds are already documented in the schema, including the 1-30 range and default 10. The description restates the timeout range and default but adds no new syntax or format meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Block one tool call until the Wake delivers a bounded event or timeoutSeconds elapses') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings wake, wake_cancel, and session_status. The scope (long-poll wait, not a fetch) is explicit in the first clause.

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 usage context and routes the agent to next steps: 'Fetch the resource via the existing surface, then wake_cancel when done waiting.' It does not explicitly state when not to call it (e.g., vs. a plain wake or look_around), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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