minimax_wait_for_quota

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses blocking behavior, polling interval, cancellation via MCP connection close, and the default threshold source. This is comprehensive and gives an agent confidence about the tool's runtime semantics.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the primary action, but it repeats the threshold condition ('exceeds' and 'threshold is satisfied') in consecutive sentences. Still, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers blocking, polling, cancellation, and default, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. Minor gap: no mention of potential indefinite blocking or timeouts, but cancellation is noted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly references both parameters: poll_seconds as the polling interval and target_remaining_percent as the threshold with a default. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 ('Block') and resource ('5h window remaining percent'), and explicitly contrasts with a fixed sleep. It distinguishes from sibling minimax_status by referencing it as the polling function, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('truly pause' vs. fixed sleep) and implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or compare with other siblings like minimax_window or minimax_consume, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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