android_ui_wait_for

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the core behavioral fact that the tool blocks or polls until a selector becomes present or absent, which is useful. It does not disclose timeout failure behavior, return value, or polling semantics, but annotations lower the burden.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is stated first, and the usage guidance is front-loaded immediately after. Every word contributes value.

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 15 optional parameters, zero schema parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It defines the high-level purpose but leaves major operational details ambiguous: how selector criteria combine, what happens on timeout, and what the tool returns or reports.

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?

The input schema has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides almost no parameter guidance. Using the generic term 'selector' does not explain how the 15 fields compose into a selector. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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's function: wait until a selector becomes present or absent. It names a specific verb ('wait'), a resource ('selector'), and the two possible target states. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like android_ui_find or android_events_wait, so it stops short of a 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this after actions instead of blind sleeps.' This provides a positive use case and an explicit anti-pattern to avoid. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool relative to specific sibling tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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