game_await_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions timeout and return args, but omits what happens on timeout (error vs empty result), whether the call blocks, whether the signal must already be connected to the node, and whether awaiting consumes the signal. For a potentially blocking operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

Eight words that pack in the action, the timeout modifier, and the return behavior — efficient and front-loaded with zero filler. It borders on under-specification but earns credit for density.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral context, yet it omits timeout failure behavior and return structure. For an await operation, the agent cannot tell what happens when the signal never fires or what format the returned args take.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'return args' hints at the signal payload but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents for timeout, nodePath, and signalName.

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 specific verb ('await'), a resource ('signal'), and key modifiers (timeout, return args). The action is distinguishable from signal siblings like game_connect_signal, game_disconnect_signal, and game_emit_signal, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named game_wait.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_wait (time-based waiting) or the signal management tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are named; the usage context is only implied by the action verb.

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