wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context — polling loop, 10s default, 120s ceiling — but never says what happens on timeout (false result vs. error) or what the call returns, which matters for a blocking poll.

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?

Two tight sentences: the mechanism and its limits come first, the usage cue second. No filler, and the anti-pattern (repeated screenshots) is packed into the same clause rather than a separate sentence.

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?

For a 7-parameter polling tool with no output schema and 43% coverage, the description leaves notable holes: return value on success vs. timeout, and the role of interval and threshold. The core loop and timeout bounds are covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is only 43%, and the description compensates partially: it explains that 'question' is a yes/no predicate and supplies the default and maximum for 'timeout', which the schema leaves undocumented. However, 'interval' and 'threshold' get no meaning from either source, so the gap is only half closed.

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?

States a specific verb and mechanism: repeatedly inspect the screen until a yes/no question holds or a timeout fires. Defaults (10s, max 120s) are included, and the closing clause distinguishes it from the screenshot sibling by saying it replaces repeated screenshots.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions — waiting for loading, waiting for a popup — and implicitly routes the agent away from manual repeated screenshots. It does not name an explicit when-not case or name a sibling tool like observe or check, which keeps it short of a 5.

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