callback_wait

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses the polling behavior (checks every 2 seconds), timeout, and blocking nature. It could be more explicit about the tool being blocking until a callback arrives or timeout, but the information is still sufficient.

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 concise, well-structured with Args, Returns, and an Example section. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description's mention of the return type (new callback entry or timeout message) is sufficient. The example demonstrates typical usage, and the tool is simple enough that no further detail is needed.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: timeout_seconds is explained as maximum wait time with default 60, and callback_type has its possible values ('http', 'dns', 'all') listed. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 purpose: 'Wait for a new callback to arrive at the local catcher.' It distinguishes from sibling callback tools by emphasizing the waiting/polling behavior, which is unique among the set of callback tools.

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 explains the polling mechanism and timeout, indicating when to use (to wait for a callback). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like callback_check or callback_latest, which could provide clearer guidance on alternative uses.

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