huddo_wait

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses blocking semantics, the 'no new messages' timeout result, deduplication ('never repeats a message'), a hard cap of 200 with a skipped-unread count line, and the re-poll loop. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs and cannot get from the annotation or 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent clause carries distinct information (prefix format, timeout result, dedup, cap, polling). The semicolon-chained run-on style makes it dense to parse but there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape (prefixed messages, count line, 'no new messages') and the truncation behavior. Combined with a 100%-covered input schema, nothing material is missing for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that omitting 'room' waits across all rooms whereas supplying it scopes to one, clarifying the default behavior of that parameter. 'as' and 'timeout_seconds' semantics remain in the schema only.

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 names a specific verb+resource (block until messages arrive, return new messages) and describes the exact output format with the [room name roomId] prefix. It implies differentiation from huddo_read via 'Never repeats a message' but never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Call it again every time it returns to keep listening' gives clear operational context for the polling loop, and the timeout/no-new-messages case is described. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. huddo_read for backfilling history), which keeps it below a 5.

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