wait_for_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the max wait time (50 seconds) and that it can be called repeatedly, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on timeout (e.g., empty response), leaving key operational details unspecified.

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 a single efficient sentence (in Thai) that front-loads the core purpose and includes key constraints. It avoids waste, though the addition of 'call again if no message' is somewhat redundant with the real-time waiting concept.

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 tool's complexity (long-polling mechanism) and lack of output schema, the description should explain the return format or timeout behavior more thoroughly. It covers the basics but misses important context like what happens if the wait times out or how messages are returned, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (chatMid and timeoutSec with defaults and max). The description adds little beyond repeating the optional chatMid filter and 50-second limit already present in the schema.

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 states a clear verb+resource: waiting for new LINE messages in real-time, returning messages that arrive during the wait. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_new_messages and get_chat_messages by emphasizing the real-time waiting behavior and optional chatMid filter. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool to avoid confusion with get_new_messages.

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?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'call again if no message yet' and optionally specifying chatMid to wait for a specific room. However, it does not state when to use this versus get_new_messages or get_chat_messages, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling names.

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