computer.wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden, but it only says polling is supported. It does not disclose behavior on timeout, polling mechanics, read-only nature, or side effects. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, timeout behavior, or how the wait condition is specified, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions title, process, role, text, and automationId as query attributes, but does not explain other parameters such as until, pollMs, timeoutMs, window, or windowQuery. The description only partially clarifies the query structure, leaving most parameters without semantic context.

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 clearly states the tool waits for windows or UI elements to appear/disappear, with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported query attributes (title, process, role, text, automationId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like computer.state or computer.inspect which are not polling operations.

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 implies this tool is for polling until a UI element appears or disappears, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like computer.inspect or computer.verify. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and description.

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