aiworkhub_claude_callback_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it flags that the call BLOCKS, that a prior batch is acknowledged via ack_batch_id/ack_lease_id, and that an unacknowledged lease is retried rather than lost. It still omits details such as what happens when timeout_seconds elapses or whether an empty ack is allowed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the key blocking trait, and the acknowledgment mechanics follow immediately. Backticked identifiers aid scanning; nothing is redundant, though the 'BLOCKING READ/CLAIM' prefix plus 'wait' slightly overlaps.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the description covers the essential loop semantics (wait, ack, retry). The main gap is the unmentioned timeout_seconds parameter and any guidance on long-poll behavior across repeated calls.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains why ack_batch_id/ack_lease_id are passed (to acknowledge the previous batch) and where those values come from, but timeout_seconds is never mentioned despite a non-obvious default of 240.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('wait for a callback') plus a scope ('for this verified Claude Code manager session'), and it names the sibling tool aiworkhub_claude_callback_ack, which distinguishes it from the closest alternative. The leading 'BLOCKING READ/CLAIM' label is somewhat ambiguous (is it reading or claiming work?), keeping it just short of 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 context for when to invoke — waiting for a callback on a verified manager session — and names an alternative path for acknowledging (passing ack ids here, or calling aiworkhub_claude_callback_ack). It does not spell out when NOT to use this tool or how to choose between the two ack paths, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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