app_wait_for_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses blocking behavior and the asynchronous race condition it addresses, but it does not explain timeout behavior, failure modes, or whether it matches an already-open dialog.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the following context explains the race condition efficiently. Some narrative phrasing, especially "the pattern this layer spent the day removing everywhere else," is less useful for an agent and could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the tool has two undocumented parameters and no annotations, and the description omits timeout behavior and `title` semantics, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for both `title` and `timeout`, and the description does not mention either parameter. It gives no guidance on whether `title` filters the awaited dialog or how `timeout` affects blocking behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Block until a dialog appears, and report which one." That clearly identifies a wait-for-dialog operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like app_list_open_dialogs.

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?

It explains the key usage context: a command that raises a dialog returns before the dialog exists, so acting and then looking can miss it. It also names fixed sleep as the inferior alternative, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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