wait_seconds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Pause execution for a number of seconds' communicates the core blocking behavior, but it does not mention whether the delay is approximate, whether invalid or negative values are handled, or what happens after the pause. The existence of an output schema reduces some of this burden.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and reads clearly in an agent-facing context.

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 simple, single-parameter wait tool, the description is largely complete. The output schema already exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. The main missing element is guidance about parameter constraints and when to prefer sibling wait_for, but overall the tool is simple enough that this is not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does confirm that the 'seconds' parameter controls the pause duration, but it adds little beyond the schema's title 'Seconds' and provides no constraints, acceptable ranges, or examples. It is minimally adequate but not richly informative.

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 clearly states the action ('Pause execution') and the resource ('a number of seconds'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling wait_for by framing this as a fixed time-based delay, though it does not explicitly name the 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus wait_for or other siblings. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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