fxa_wait_for_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses blocking behavior ('Blocks until...'), timeout handling, and return semantics ('Returns waiting:false when nothing arrived'). It also explains the structured snapshot, which is a key behavioral outcome.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the return value, and the recommended follow-up action. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (text + snapshot, waiting flag), and how to handle the no-message case. No significant gaps remain.

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 already fully documents timeoutSec with range and default ('How long to wait, 5–600 seconds. Default 240.'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action: 'Wait for the trader's next message on the paired chart' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fxa_reply (sending) and fxa_connect_chart (connecting) by focusing on the waiting/blocking behavior.

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 useful context on how to use the result ('read that instead of asking them to describe what they are looking at') and instructs to 'call it again to keep listening' when waiting:false. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list makes the intended use clear.

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