wait_reply

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

The annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial context: the answer is marked read, reserved exclusively for the caller, invisible to other sessions' inboxes, and late replies are attached to the next call. It also covers the "restarting" relay state and timeout behavior, which are valuable operational details beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and reservation semantics, then adds necessary edge-case behavior and parameter details without filler. Every sentence contributes operationally useful information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be fully documented, yet the description still explains return semantics around missing answers and late_replies. Combined with the timeout and restarting edge cases, it gives the agent enough to invoke and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that id comes from send and that timeout_s is a maximum wait in seconds ranging from 1 to 600 with a default of 300. Both parameters gain clear meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: wait for the answer to a message you sent, then return it. It also clarifies the reservation behavior while waiting, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inbox or read.

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?

It clearly says to use the id returned by send, and explains what to do when status is "restarting" by calling again. It does not explicitly compare this tool against alternatives such as inbox or read, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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