huddo_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses blocking behavior, the return format ('[room name spaceId]' prefix), timeout outcome ('no new messages'), and a strong delivery guarantee ('never repeats or skips messages across calls'). These are exactly the traits an agent needs and are not derivable from the schema.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the blocking behavior, followed by return format, edge case, and loop guidance. No filler and every clause carries 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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the blocking semantics, return shape, timeout behavior, ordering guarantee, and recommended invocation loop. An agent has everything needed to call and re-call it 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 100%, so all three parameters are already fully documented including defaults and the 'makes it the default' side effect. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (block/wait) and resource (new messages from others) with clear scope (any room or a specific room). An agent can readily distinguish this from huddo_read, which presumably returns existing messages rather than blocking for new ones.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'call it again in a loop to keep watching,' which is a concrete usage pattern. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the sibling huddo_read or state when not to use it.

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