wait_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: timeout returns current state, commentary does not wake the tool, and wait is capped at 60 seconds. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid misuse.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the operational hints. Little wasted text, though the phrasing is slightly terse and telegraphic.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return values; it only covers the timeout return ('returns current state on timeout') and leaves the normal wake return shape unspecified. Adequate but incomplete for a blocking-wait tool.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the cursor semantics ('each last returned cursor to avoid repeated notifications') and implies per-target thread ids, but never explains threadId itself or that targets is an array of up to 8 entries.

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 (wait) and resource (peer threads) plus the wake conditions (finish or need attention). It is clearly distinct from read_thread/list_threads, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative.

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?

Gives implied usage via the cursor hint ('pass each last returned cursor to avoid repeated notifications'), which tells the agent how to call it repeatedly. It does not say when to prefer this over list_threads or read_thread, leaving the selection to inference.

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