wait_thread

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral detail: a timeout leaves the turn running, completion can mean failure or interruption, and the response never substitutes another turn. These details go well beyond what the annotations or schema convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, then adds precise caveats. Every sentence adds useful information, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the important edge cases: no resumption/interruption, timeout behavior, the 100-turn limit, status interpretation, and the guarantee against substituting another turn. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for its 3 parameters, but the description compensates by explaining timeout behavior ('up to 50 seconds', 'Zero returns one snapshot', 'A timeout leaves the turn running') and scoping turn_id to the latest 100 turns. It does not explicitly walk through thread_id and turn_id, but their roles are reasonably clear from context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Wait up to 50 seconds for a specific recent turn.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('without resuming or interrupting it'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on turns. The scope is further sharpened by noting it only inspects the latest 100 turns.

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 gives clear context and an explicit alternative: 'use read_thread pagination for older turns.' It does not enumerate all when-not-to-use cases, but the recent-turn limitation and read-only waiting behavior make the intended use clear.

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