wait_for_my_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout semantics, periodic progress notifications, popup sweeping, hotseat vs LAN/solo differences, and the meaning of the `gate`, `seat`, and `active_player` return fields. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a state-machine-like tool.

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 core blocking behavior and its timeout fallback are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the dense remainder each conveys distinct branch handling. It is long but nearly every sentence earns its place, though the density could be trimmed slightly for readability.

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?

For a complex blocking tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers returns (turn_status, gate, seat, active_player), all early-return branches, timeout behavior, and follow-up tools. An agent has everything needed to call it and react to its output correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single timeout_seconds parameter, which it largely does with actionable value guidance (600-1800 when the client honours progress, else under the tool-call limit). It does not reconcile this with the schema default of 90, leaving a small ambiguity, but adds clear meaning beyond the bare type/default.

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+resource ('Block until it is my turn') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like turn_status and finish_turn by describing the blocking wait and its early-return states. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (blocking on turn transitions, sweeping popups), what to do on each early return (discussion_pending -> discussion()/respond_discussion(); tech_popup_pending -> choose research), and names alternatives (finish_turn = end_turn + this + turn_digest). The 'call it again' loops are laid out for each branch.

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