peer_wait_until_complete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that reaching wait window returns turnCompleted false, not a failure, and that it waits quietly. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous words, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 present; description does not mention return value format (e.g., turnCompleted boolean). Adequate for high-level behavior but incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 only 33%, with 'waitWindowSeconds' and 'pollIntervalSeconds' described. The description does not explain 'peerId', 'threadId', 'turnId', or 'maxResponseChars', relying on schema which lacks descriptions for those. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.

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 it waits for a previously-started peer turn and returns only on completion or wait window end. The verb and resource are specific, distinguishing from sibling tools like 'peer_wait' which may be generic.

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?

Implies usage after starting a peer turn but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'peer_wait' or 'peer_read'. Clear context but lacking exclusion guidance.

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