live_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure, and it delivers richly. It discloses the blocking wait duration (~50s), the silent wait and immediate return behavior, the timeout semantics (timeout=true, events=[]), heartbeat side-effects (ttl 60), persistent cursor semantics for consumer_id, and the contract version protocol. No behavioral surprise is left undocumented.

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 continuous dense paragraph, which makes scanning harder, but nearly every sentence carries crucial information. It is front-loaded with the core wait semantics and then systematically covers timeout, heartbeat, cursor, and contract version. A bulleted list would improve structure, but given the high information density, it remains appropriately sized.

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 the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it explains blocking behavior, timeout handling, heartbeat, cursor persistence, contract version negotiation, and the relationship to alternative tooling. The main omissions are the exact shape of returned events and the purpose of pair_id, but the description covers the core usage contract thoroughly.

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 already documents 4 of 5 parameters (80% coverage), but the description adds significant behavioral meaning beyond those schema notes. For example, it explains the 'since' parameter as a confirmation to advance the cursor, and describes the auto-resume behavior for consumer_id. However, pair_id remains completely undocumented in both schema and description, which is a notable gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: '阻塞等待下一个 Live Teaching / AdHoc 事件' (block waiting for the next Live Teaching/AdHoc event). It explicitly differentiates itself from live_pending by framing this as waiting rather than polling, and it names the sibling tool ('比反复调用 live_pending 省 token'), which removes any ambiguity about its role.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, stating that it is more token-efficient than repeatedly calling live_pending and that it shares logic with GET /bridge/wait. It also tells the user not to call live_pending on timeout ('直接再挂一次即可, 不必先调 live_pending 探路'), which is a clear exclusion. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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