wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the blocking behavior, polling interval (250ms), clamping of timeout_s to [1,120], and immediate return for unread signals. It does not describe the return format, but an output schema exists.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core behavior, then usage guidance, then parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's polling behavior, 3 optional parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, parameter constraints, and polling mechanics. It could briefly mention what the tool returns, but the output schema exists, so completeness is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'kinds' (comma-separated filter, empty=any) and 'timeout_s' (clamped to [1,120]). However, it does not explain the 'mark_read' parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description adds value but is incomplete for all three 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 clearly states the tool blocks until a new signal arrives or timeout elapses, and mentions it polls every 250ms. It distinguishes its use for realtime turn-based exchange, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'whisper' or 'respond', which are complementary rather than alternatives.

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 states when to use: 'for realtime turn-based exchange with peers: one side waits, the other side broadcasts/whispers/responds.' It also explains behavior when unread signals exist. It does not provide 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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