wait-for-response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: it blocks until completion, resolves when every message_object[i].completed === true, handles media-only replies, and respects the server poll interval/timeout. This is far beyond a minimal description.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences each earn their place: core behavior, exact resolution condition, media handling, and usage hint. No wasted words and no redundancy with the schema.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description explains the return (text and media URLs), the blocking condition, the media-only case, and the timeout behavior. It doesn't specify edge cases like what happens on timeout expired or if there is no in-progress message, but it is still sufficiently complete for the intended use case.

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%, and the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. Timeout and poll_interval are already described in the schema as overrides, and chat_id is only implied via 'in a chat'. The description doesn't explicitly map these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a mid-range score fits.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Block until') and clearly identifies the resource ('latest assistant message in a chat') and the action (waits for generation, then returns text/media URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-messages or stream-message and explicitly ties it to send-message.

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 gives explicit context with 'Use after `send-message`', clearly indicating when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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