bus_wait_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key blocking behavior and timeout expiration. However, it does not mention side effects such as mark_read, whether messages are consumed, or what the caller receives on arrival/timeout.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, with no filler. 'Eliminates terminal polling' adds useful usage context without bloating the description.

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?

The description covers what the tool does but not the full contract: there is no return-value description, no clarification of mark_read's effect, and no relationship to bus_inbox. For a blocking call with no annotations or output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying timeout relates to blocking, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation (long-poll/wait) and resource (incoming message on the bus), so an agent understands what the tool does. It is not merely a restatement of the tool name, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as bus_inbox.

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?

'Eliminates terminal polling' implies this tool is the blocking alternative to repeated polling, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over bus_inbox or bus_history. The guidance is suggestive rather than definitive.

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