Wait for the user's reply

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: replies are consumed exactly once, a 'timeout' is normal and not an error, and 'stopped' indicates the user ended remote chat mode. These details help the agent anticipate non-obvious behaviors.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives usage guidance, the third explains consumption behavior, and the fourth clarifies status semantics. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values and all possible statuses, including edge cases (timeout is normal, stopped means stop calling). Covers usage prerequisites and post-conditions, making it complete for an agent to operate 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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters with detailed descriptions (session routing/concurrency, maxBlockMs default/cap). The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Blocks') and resource ('this conversation's chat thread'), and specifies the exact return statuses ('message', 'timeout', 'stopped'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling bridge_send_and_await by stating when each should be used.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you already posted with bridge_send and only need the answer'), names the alternative ('prefer bridge_send_and_await'), and gives post-condition guidance ('stop calling bridge_* tools until a new bridge_start' after 'stopped').

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