perch_wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the gone:true inversion and that waiting happens in the preview frame, plus workflow placement. However, it never says what happens when the timeout elapses (error vs. empty return) or that the call blocks, which are the key behavioral traits for a wait primitive with no output schema.

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, no filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the usage cue second. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage but omits the failure mode on timeout and any indication of the return value. The schema documents the inputs, so the definition is workable but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.

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 100% and every parameter (gone, text, frame, timeout, selector) is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the gone flag and the selector/text target, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (wait) and resource (selector or visible text) plus the inversion case (gone:true) and the scope (preview). An agent can tell this is a synchronization primitive rather than a read/action tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

'Use after a click/edit before asserting' gives a concrete triggering context, which is exactly the workflow an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. perch_snapshot or perch_read for immediate checks) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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