ui2.wait_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a change is detected by the disappearance of baseline_text and that the new interactive elements are returned. It does not describe timeout behavior, polling cadence, or what is returned when nothing changes within the timeout.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, trigger context, and return value with no wasted words. Slightly dense but appropriately sized.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return content, but leaves failure/timeout behavior and the undocumented timeout parameter unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: baseline_text is documented ('disappearance = change') but timeout has no description beyond its default. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented timeout parameter.

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+resource: it waits for a screen change and returns the new interface's interactive elements. The parenthetical use case ('after clicking a button to confirm the effect') makes the intent concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ui.wait_for or events.wait.

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?

It gives one concrete usage scenario ('confirm a button click took effect'), which implies when to reach for it. But it names no alternatives (ui.wait_for, events.wait) and states no when-not conditions, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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