Ensure the Android UI is stable by waiting for two consecutive samples of quiet accessibility events and consistent semantic state. This avoids acting on intermediate UI states.
Wait until accessibility events are quiet and semantic UI state is stable for two samples.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quietMs | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the wait condition involves two samples of stability, adding detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential timeout behavior or error handling, which could be relevant for a blocking operation.
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 sentence, efficiently stating the purpose without unnecessary detail.
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?
The description provides the basic context of waiting for idle UI but lacks elaboration on when to use it or what constitutes 'stable' state. Given the many sibling waiting tools, more context would be helpful.
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 description does not explain the meaning of the parameters quietMs and timeoutMs. Although the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no clarification, and the schema coverage is zero, so the agent must infer the 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 clearly states the tool's function: waiting for UI to become idle. It specifies the resource (accessibility events and semantic UI) and distinguishes from sibling wait tools that focus on change or activity.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternative wait-related tools. It lacks a clear 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, leaving the choice to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.