wake_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 well: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout limits, the compact return shape (type + resource + why + next), the deliberate absence of content dumps, and that ack/cancel must happen separately via wake/wake_cancel. This gives an agent a realistic behavioral contract 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?

Three dense sentences, all front-loaded and free of filler. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, what it returns, and what to do next.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose, timeout bounds and default, return shape, and the recommended next steps. The main remaining gap is what exactly happens on timeout (e.g., null/empty result) and how errors are surfaced, but an agent can still invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: timeoutSeconds is already described with default/min/max, while wakeId only has a name and string type. The description adds context about the Wake event and bounded timeout but never explicitly defines the wakeId parameter or its format, leaving it to inference from the prose and sibling tool names.

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: it blocks on a Wake until a bounded event arrives or timeoutSeconds elapses, and returns only an event reference. It also distinguishes itself from content-fetching tools by explicitly saying it is 'never a content dump' and references the wake/wake_cancel siblings as follow-up actions.

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: this is the blocking wait step for a Wake, with timeoutSeconds capping the long-poll (default 10, max 30). It also names the follow-up workflow — fetch the resource, then wake_cancel or ack via wake — though it does not explicitly say when to prefer wake_cancel instead.

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