agenthop_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds rich context beyond that: it's a blocking wait, returns 'everything new since' including the peer's progress state, and is meant to be re-called on timeout. It doesn't disclose timeout defaults (schema does) or rate limits, but the core behavior is well described.

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?

Packed into three tight sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct information: what it waits for, what it returns, and the retry/no-conversation cases. The return condition is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a blocking wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: trigger (peer action or timeout), return payload (new messages plus progress), retry guidance, and idle behavior. An agent can call this correctly without further information, though the exact message format is left implicit.

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 the single timeout_seconds parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 50, max 290). The description does not restate or clarify the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (wait for the other side) and precisely defines the return condition (only when it is your turn or timeout). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agenthop_say, agenthop_working, and agenthop_status, which all take action rather than block for inbound events.

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 says when to call again (if nothing came in time) and what happens when no conversation is active (waits for invitations). This gives an agent the full lifecycle of the call and the retry loop, with no ambiguity about when to use it versus siblings.

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