wait-for-response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call blocks, the exact resolution condition, SSE-then-REST-polling transport fallback, and that media-only replies still resolve. Gaps remain around timeout-expiry behavior (error vs. partial return) and permission/auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the blocking purpose and return values, then the resolution rule, then transport detail — a sound ordering with no filler sentences. The hard-coded hostname 'sse.syntx.ai' is the one piece of detail that borders on noise.

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, but the description states what comes back (text plus media URLs) and how completion is determined, so an agent can consume the result. The main missing piece for a blocking call is what happens when the timeout elapses.

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 coverage is 67% — timeout and poll_interval are already documented in the schema, and chat_id is self-evident. The description's only contribution is contextualizing polling via the SSE/REST fallback sentence; it adds no units, defaults, or guidance on choosing timeout/poll_interval values.

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?

States a precise blocking verb ('Block until the latest assistant message in a chat finishes generating') plus what it returns (text and media URLs). It names the exact completion predicate (message_object[i].completed === true) and explicitly covers media-only replies, which distinguishes it from get-messages / stream-message / get-inprogress at a glance.

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?

'Use after `send-message`' gives an explicit sequencing cue, and the blocking semantics imply when this is preferred over a plain fetch. It does not, however, contrast with close siblings like stream-message or get-inprogress, nor state when not to use it.

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