Wait for Studio window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the caveat that window readiness does not prove media processing/export completion, but it omits what happens on timeout (default 10000ms cap) and that only the first match is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important caveat. No filler, though the second sentence could be tightened further.

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?

Eleven optional parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, yet the description never describes what the observation returns (screenshot, element list, text) or how the selection/settle/timeout parameters interact. An agent must read the whole schema to call this safely.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but barely does. The phrase 'saved capture preferences' hints at the persistence behavior of output_detail/image_format, yet kind, settle_ms, timeout_ms, max_elements, title_contains and include_screenshot get no explanation in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (wait for a matching Studio window) plus an immediate follow-on action (observe with saved capture preferences). It is differentiable from siblings like studio_list_windows and studio_status, though the overlap with studio_observe is only implicitly resolved.

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?

Usage is implied: call this before acting on a window, and it distinguishes itself from studio_wait by requiring a matching Studio window. However, it never says when NOT to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as studio_list_windows for discovery or studio_verify_export for completion checks.

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