wait_for_callback

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

With no annotations, the description fully conveys behavioral traits: blocking until callback or timeout, signature verification, decryption, and the two return states. It also explains the 'after' cursor to avoid missing callbacks between calls. 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 efficiently structured: first sentence states core function, second gives usage context, third describes return types, fourth explains the 'after' parameter. Every sentence adds necessary information with 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?

The description covers blocking, timeout, return structures, and parameter usage. It mentions signature verification but doesn't detail the 'request' object structure. However, without an output schema, the provided JSON example suffices. Slightly incomplete for a complex async tool, but adequate.

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 100% with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: 'from create_callback_endpoint' for slug, 'how long to block' for timeoutMs, and an example for 'after' explaining its purpose. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 blocks until a webhook callback arrives and returns it, distinguishing it from polling. It uses specific verbs ('block', 'return') and references the resource ('webhook callback'), differentiating it from sibling tools like create_callback_endpoint or list_callbacks.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'for async/long-running work: kick off the job... then call wait_for_callback'. It contrasts with polling and explains the retry behavior if timeoutMs elapses. It provides clear context for usage without mentioning alternatives by name.

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