events.wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that event delivery is push-based and that frame/snapshot verification is still needed to guard against false positives, but it omits timeout behavior and match/return semantics for this blocking wait.

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 compact sentence with semicolon-separated clauses, front-loading the main action and event types. Every clause adds information; no padding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core event types, pkg filtering, and false-positive verification. It is still incomplete because timeout semantics and what a successful or timed-out wait returns are not described.

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, the description compensates by listing valid type values and noting that pkg narrows the wait. The timeout parameter (default 15) is not explained, so a significant gap remains.

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-resource ('等一个匹配事件') and enumerates event types (page_change/app_start/app_crash/visual_change), with the push-vs-polling distinction. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from sibling wait tools such as ui.wait_for, app.wait_idle, or ui2.wait_change, so it stops short of 5.

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 parenthetical '推送，非 sleep 轮询' and the supported event types imply an event-driven waiting context, and pkg is offered as a scope filter. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving routing to inference.

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