android_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (waiting for delay or condition) and the polling nature, but it omits important details like what happens on timeout, whether errors are raised, and whether the tool returns a value. The timeout_ms parameter is mentioned but not explained in terms of consequences when exceeded. This is a moderate gap given the lack of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary of functionality, a usage tip, and a clear arg list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose and alternative usage) is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema), the description covers all parameters and the core behavior. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like what happens when both ms and until_text are provided, or the exact timeout behavior (exception vs silent return). These are minor gaps but would help an agent anticipate outcomes. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: ms (fixed sleep), until_text (poll until present), until_gone (poll until absent), timeout_ms (give up after), and device (defaults to first physical device). This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare types, clarifying units, defaults, and semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Wait for a fixed delay, or until some text appears or disappears.' It explicitly differentiates itself from screenshotting mid-animation and lists three modes, making its purpose unambiguous. The mention of 'content-desc' and 'poll' further distinguishes it from sibling tools like android_screenshot and android_ui_dump.

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 provides a specific usage scenario: 'Use this instead of screenshotting into the middle of an animation.' It also explains the three polling modes, which implies when each should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools beyond screenshotting, so it's not fully comprehensive but gives clear context.

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