Pause automation until a UI element, text, or screen idle condition is met, then return true or false.
Wait for something instead of sleeping. Returns met=true/false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gone | No | Wait for it to disappear instead | |
| name | No | Accessible element name to wait for | |
| role | No | With name: required role, e.g. 'button' | |
| text | No | Visible text to wait for (OCR) | |
| timeout | No | ||
| screen_idle | No | Wait until the screen stops changing |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds that the tool returns met=true/false. It does not disclose important behaviors like whether it blocks until timeout, whether met=false means timeout, or whether it returns immediately if the condition is already satisfied.
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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, 'something' is an unhelpfully generic placeholder that could be replaced with a more specific phrase, making the first sentence slightly less informative than it could be.
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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but serviceable when combined with the schema descriptions. The main gap is the absence of timeout semantics and the meaning of met=false, which an agent would need to handle failed waits 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 high at 83%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, such as how name, role, and text combine or the effect of the gone flag, leaving the schema to carry that burden.
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 names an action ('wait') and a result ('met=true/false'), but 'something' is vague and does not specify what can be waited on, such as an element, text, or the screen becoming idle. It also does not clearly differentiate wait_for from sibling tools like find or read_screen beyond the waiting behavior.
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?
'Instead of sleeping' gives a clear directive for when to prefer this tool over a raw sleep, which is useful. However, it does not explain when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as find or read_screen for checking current state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.