desktop_wait_for_stable

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the sampling mechanism, that equality does not prove the app is ready (a critical caveat), and that a desktop_screenshot is required to recover from uncertain input. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention timeout behavior or potential side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence followed by two concise clauses. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential caveats without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it covers the core behavior and a key caveat, it completely omits parameter explanations, which are critical for correct invocation. Without any output schema, the description does mention the return (last image and stability status), but the lack of parameter semantics makes it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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%—none of the 8 parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not explain the meaning of any parameter (e.g., x, y, width, height, poll_ms, stable_ms, timeout_ms, max_width). For a tool with 8 parameters and zero coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information at all. This is a severe gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Observe sampled desktop pixels until unchanged for the requested duration, or sampling times out.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like desktop_screenshot (single capture) and desktop_status. It's concise and specific about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to wait for the desktop to stabilize) and mentions that 'a full desktop_screenshot is still required to recover from an uncertain input,' which provides some context about limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like desktop_screenshot or desktop_status, nor does it provide clear exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implied but not fully developed.

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