wait_for_event

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses the critical 'live only' semantic: replayed events never satisfy the wait regardless of arrival timing. It also exposes blocking behavior, the 60-second cap, and optional event-type filtering, giving the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 sentences with no filler. The core blocking behavior is front-loaded, the live-vs-replayed subtlety is explained in the middle, and the sibling routing closes it out. Every sentence contributes directly to correct usage.

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 blocking tool with nuanced live-event semantics, this description is complete. It covers what counts, what does not count, the timeout constraint, optional filtering, and the correct alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden.

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 does this well by listing valid event types and imposing the timeout max of 60 seconds. The dev_eui parameter is not explained, but its meaning is fully inferable from the tool name and sibling context.

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 names a specific verb ('Block until') and resource ('device emits a live event'), then clarifies the optional event types and timeout behavior. It also explicitly differentiates itself from device_recent_events, which is the key sibling an agent might confuse it with.

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 makes the intended use unambiguous: wait for live events only, and if you need replayed/history events, use device_recent_events. This direct alternative routing is exactly what an agent needs to choose the correct tool.

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