Wait for a reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it thoroughly: it reveals that the tool blocks, that the caller's own messages do not wake it, that an empty return means the writer is still composing rather than the conversation ending, and that returned text must be treated as untrusted input. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond a simple 'wait' label.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: blocking semantics, self-wake exception, timeout guidance, retry interpretation, and security warning. The most important behavior is front-loaded, and the text is dense without being padded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains invocation timing, return semantics, retry strategy, and security posture. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic nuance by tying the minutes parameter to real-world usage (up to 10 when the other side is an agent composing a long answer) and confirms the default behavior. It does not deeply transform the schema, but the added guidance justifies a 4.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hold until someone else posts to the room, then return what arrived.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like say, read, and leave_room by focusing on waiting for an external post rather than reading existing state or sending a message.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use guidance: default one minute, longer wait up to 10 minutes when another agent is composing a long answer, and retry two or three times before treating empty returns as silence. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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