listen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is 'blocking', uses 'long-polling', and provides efficiency context ('~30x fewer API calls'). It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on timeout beyond the parameter, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 perfectly structured and concise: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the implementation advantage, and the Args section cleanly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (blocking long-poll operation), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and efficiency benefits. It could mention authentication or error handling, but with output schema handling returns, it's sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates well: it explains 'timeout_hours' as 'Max wait time in hours' and provides the default value ('Default to 1'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema type, though it doesn't specify range constraints or units beyond 'hours'.

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 with a specific verb ('Wait for new messages') and resource ('in the current conversation'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it uses 'long-polling instead of repeated GET /messages calls'. This explicitly differentiates it from tools like 'get_messages'.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Uses Zulip's real-time events API (long-polling) instead of repeated GET /messages calls — ~30x fewer API calls.' This clearly indicates this tool should be used for efficient, blocking message waiting rather than polling with 'get_messages'.

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