app.wait_idle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the wait covers both foreground state and stability, which is useful, but says nothing about polling frequency, what 'stable' means, what happens on timeout (error, return value, or silent exit), or whether the call blocks the harness.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, at this length the brevity tips into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving the agent without enough to act on.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for a blocking wait primitive. It omits timeout semantics, failure behavior, and any distinction from the many sibling wait tools, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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% with two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: 'pkg' is never defined (package name? activity?) and 'timeout' is never mentioned, including whether it is in seconds or milliseconds or what occurs when it elapses. The word 'app' only loosely gestures at 'pkg'.

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 action (wait) with two conditions (foreground + stable) on a named resource (the app), which is more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling wait tools such as ui.wait_for, events.wait, or ui2.wait_change, so an agent must infer which wait is appropriate.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. There is nothing telling the agent to prefer this over ui.wait_for or events.wait when the goal is app-level readiness rather than element-level or event-level waits.

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