wait_for_text

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

Discloses waiting up to timeout seconds, but fails to state behavior on timeout (error or return value) or polling frequency. With no annotations, this gap is significant 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?

Single 10-word sentence with main action front-loaded and timeout appended in parentheses. Every word is necessary; excellent conciseness.

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 no annotations and presence of output schema, the description is incomplete: no return value, no timeout error behavior, no polling details. Insufficient for a core waiting tool among 12 siblings.

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 has 0% description coverage; description mentions 'text' and 'timeout' but does not clarify text matching (exact/partial) or timeout units/format. Adds minimal meaning beyond field names.

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 that the tool waits for an element containing text, with a verb-resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like assert_text (assertion) and tap_text (interaction), but lacks explicit timeout failure behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., assert_text) or on prerequisites. The description implies usage for waiting before interaction, but does not specify conditions or exclusions.

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