wait_for_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the blocking behavior, timeout, and the intended follow-up action (inspect what comes in), which covers the essential traits. It doesn't detail timeout failure modes but is adequate for a simple wait operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place: it states what it does, how to use it, and what to do after.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, and expected follow-up. It is complete for its complexity and context, and the sibling tool names provide additional context.

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% for the single parameter 'timeout_seconds', which includes a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 tool's function: 'Block until the NEXT webhook arrives (or timeout).' It uses a specific verb ('block') and resource ('NEXT webhook'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_requests or get_request by focusing on waiting for new incoming data.

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 an explicit usage scenario: 'Use this to say "I'll wait, trigger your webhook now" and then inspect what comes in.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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