mailbox_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key blocking behavior, the timeout cap, and the immediate-return path. But it omits what happens when the timeout expires (return value vs exception), whether a returned message is consumed, and any side effects. The 'Import time' line adds an implementation detail but not behavioral clarity.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core behavior, and the second sentence adds a useful edge case. But the final 'Import time is at module top' sentence is implementation noise that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, making the description less crisp than it could be.

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 tool has two parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only information source. It fails to specify the timeout outcome, whether messages are consumed, and what the return payload looks like, which are critical for a blocking mailbox read. This makes the definition incomplete for confident invocation.

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 only hints at timeout semantics ('up to timeout'), leaving the timeout_seconds parameter partially explained, and says nothing about agent_id. An agent cannot infer the meaning or allowed values for agent_id from this text.

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 opens with a specific action ('Block') tied to a clear resource (a new mailbox message), and defines the response behavior ('Returns immediately if pending messages exist'). It also names the mechanism (long-poll, up to timeout). However, it never references sibling tools, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 only implies when to call this tool — when the agent wants to wait for a message — but doesn't state when to prefer it over mailbox_check or whether it should be used as a fallback. There are no exclusions or alternative routing. The 'Import time' note is irrelevant to usage decisions.

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