wait_for_mention

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: blocking semantics, timeout behavior, mention/'*' matching, and immediate return on pending messages are all explicit. The main gap is that it does not disclose whether the call advances the ack cursor or consumes/acks the returned messages, which is material for a wait/poll-style 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the block-until behavior before the timeout and fast-path details. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 core behavior is well covered, and the output schema can explain the return shape, so the description is not required to restate it. However, it omits how thread_id scopes the wait, what exactly happens on timeout, and whether the returned messages are acked or left pending. For a 6-parameter blocking tool with no annotations, those are meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema already describes after_seq, timeout_s, and binding_token, and the description adds meaning around mention/broadcast matching. However, it never explicitly connects that behavior to mentions_only, and thread_id and max_results are left to inference from their names. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: block until a message mentioning the calling agent or broadcasting to '*' arrives, with a timeout escape. This clearly differentiates the tool from generic polling or message sending. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as poll_messages or wait_for_signal.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to block for a relevant mention and can tolerate a timeout. It also documents the fast path for messages already pending, which helps an agent understand repeated calls are safe. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative polling tools.

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