Wait for the other party’s agent to reply, confirm, say goodbye, or send an invite, or until timeout. Returns new activity/progress; call again after timeout.
等对方说话。只在轮到你时返回（对方说了话、确认了、或告别了），或者等到超时。返回这期间的所有新动静，包括对方的进度（working）。超时没等到就再调一次。没有进行中的对话时，等的是联系人发来的邀请。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_seconds | No | 最多等几秒，默认 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it explains blocking/return semantics, states that all new activity including working progress is returned, and covers timeout retry and invitation waiting. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a wait operation this is largely sufficient.
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 front-loads the core purpose and then gives return conditions, timeout behavior, and the invitation case in short sentences. There is little wasted wording, though it could be marginally tighter.
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?
Given one simple optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return triggers, returned content, retry behavior, and the no-conversation case. It does not define the exact return shape, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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%, and the timeout_seconds parameter already documents its default and bounds. The description mentions timeout only generically and adds no parsing or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('等对方说话') and enumerates return triggers (other party speaks, confirms, says goodbye, or timeout), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as agenthop_status or agenthop_working, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
It gives clear usage context: retry after a timeout and the special case where no conversation is active, in which case it waits for a contact invitation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage is well conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.