android_wait_change

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the wait is based on semantic UI changes relative to a snapshot or hash, but it does not disclose behavior on timeout, what happens if the baseline is stale, or whether the wait returns immediately if the UI already changed.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It earns its place as a high-level purpose statement, though it is terse enough that parameter semantics and timeout behavior are left unexplained.

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 wait operation with three optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the documentation is incomplete. The agent lacks guidance on timeout semantics, how the two baseline parameters interact, and what the tool returns after the wait condition is met.

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 carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only loosely maps to snapshotId and uiHash ('recent snapshot id or explicit UI hash') and omits timeoutMs entirely. It also does not explain the relationship or precedence between snapshotId and uiHash, nor what values like 0 mean.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait until') and a specific resource ('semantic UI changes'), and clearly identifies the baseline condition ('recent snapshot id or explicit UI hash'). This distinguishes it from siblings like android_wait_idle and android_ui_wait_for, which target different conditions.

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 a synchronization use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as android_wait_idle, android_screen_diff, or android_ui_wait_for. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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