memory_wait_for_event

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

The description reveals non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: 'Returns instantly if events piled up', 'One wake drains the whole queue', 'You never wake on your own actions', and 'cursor is stored per agent'. These are valuable and not in the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact. No verbosity or repetition.

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 complexity (6 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core lifecycle, queue-draining behavior, and re-arming. Parameter details are left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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?

Context signals report 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain parameters like kinds, timeout_s, long_wait, or only_mine. It only hints at agent_name via 'per agent', so it fails to compensate for the 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 opens with 'Park until another agent acts, then return everything pending' – a specific verb and resource. 'The listening half of On Board' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_write or memory_create_ticket.

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 explicitly frames when to use: 'Instead of a human relaying messages, an agent blocks here until a peer creates a ticket...' and gives direct re-arm instructions: 'Re-arm by calling it again.' This is clear contextual placement.

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