Skip to content

docs(tools): guide proportional wait_for_message timeouts#784

Merged
0xallam merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
devin/1784209706-wait-for-message-timeout-doc
Jul 16, 2026
Merged

docs(tools): guide proportional wait_for_message timeouts#784
0xallam merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
devin/1784209706-wait-for-message-timeout-doc

Conversation

@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

wait_for_message resumes the instant a message arrives (it's event-driven, not polling), so timeout_seconds is purely a cap for the case where the expected message never comes. Agents were treating the 600s default as "how long to wait" and parking on trivial handoffs, stranding themselves idle far longer than needed when a reply doesn't arrive.

Docs-only change to the wait_for_message docstring (what the model sees) so agents pick a timeout proportional to the work:

- timeout_seconds: Hard cap (default 600s). On timeout the tool
-     returns and you decide whether to keep working or wait again.
+ timeout_seconds: Max seconds to wait (default 600). This is only a cap —
+     the tool returns the INSTANT a message arrives, so a larger value never
+     makes you wait longer when the reply does come. Right-size it: a short
+     wait (e.g. 10-60s) for a quick ack or a small/fast subtask, and a longer
+     one (e.g. ~100-200s) only for genuinely long-running work (deep recon,
+     exploitation, a full sub-scan). ...

Also adds one line to the opening ("…pick a timeout_seconds proportional to the work you're awaiting"). No behavior change.

Link to Devin session: https://app.devin.ai/sessions/dad023e379e942f287bcf6822463b7a4
Requested by: @0xallam

@0xallam 0xallam self-assigned this Jul 16, 2026
@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

🤖 Devin AI Engineer

I'll be helping with this pull request! Here's what you should know:

✅ I will automatically:

  • Address comments on this PR. Add '(aside)' to your comment to have me ignore it.
  • Look at CI failures and help fix them

Note: I can only respond to comments from users who have write access to this repository.

⚙️ Control Options:

  • Disable automatic comment, CI, and merge conflict monitoring

The tool returns the instant a message arrives, so timeout_seconds is only
a cap. Reword its doc so agents right-size it (short for quick acks/small
subtasks, longer only for long-running work) instead of defaulting to 600s
and stranding themselves idle on trivial waits.
@devin-ai-integration
devin-ai-integration Bot force-pushed the devin/1784209706-wait-for-message-timeout-doc branch from 78863a0 to 6a60855 Compare July 16, 2026 13:51
@greptile-apps

greptile-apps Bot commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Greptile Summary

This PR clarifies how agents should choose wait_for_message timeouts.

  • Explains that autonomous waits resume as soon as a message arrives.
  • Recommends timeout caps proportional to the expected work.
  • Notes that interactive and chat sessions park without enforcing the cap.

Confidence Score: 5/5

This looks safe to merge.

  • The updated wording matches the autonomous and interactive wait paths.
  • No blocking issues remain in the changed code.

Important Files Changed

Filename Overview
strix/tools/agents_graph/tools.py Updates the wait_for_message docstring with proportional timeout guidance and accurate runtime-mode scope.

Reviews (3): Last reviewed commit: "docs(tools): note wait_for_message timeo..." | Re-trigger Greptile

Comment thread strix/tools/agents_graph/tools.py Outdated
@0xallam

0xallam commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@greptile

Interactive/chat sessions park until a message arrives without enforcing
timeout_seconds; clarify the cap governs autonomous multi-agent waits.
@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@greptile

@0xallam
0xallam merged commit 6786d24 into main Jul 16, 2026
1 check passed
@0xallam
0xallam deleted the devin/1784209706-wait-for-message-timeout-doc branch July 16, 2026 14:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant