wait_for_textWaits until specified text appears on an Android screen, up to a timeout, then returns the settled screen snapshot. Use it after slow screen transitions.
Wait until text appears somewhere on screen (e.g. after a slow screen
transition), up to timeout_ms (max 120000). Returns the settled snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| device | No | ||
| timeout_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load: it discloses the polling/waiting behavior, a 120000 ms ceiling on timeout_ms, and that the result is a settled snapshot. It omits what happens on timeout (error vs. last snapshot), whether matching is exact or substring beyond 'somewhere on screen', and whether any device/session prerequisite applies.
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?
A single tight sentence with the condition front-loaded and the timeout bound parenthesized inline. No waste, though the return-value clause could carry more meaning.
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 needn't be explained, which the description respects. Still, for a blocking wait tool with no annotations, the absence of failure/timeout semantics and any `device` explanation leaves a meaningful gap before an agent can call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `text` (matched anywhere on screen) and adds a real constraint to `timeout_ms` (max 120000, default implied by schema), but the `device` parameter is never explained at all, leaving a third of the surface undocumented.
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 condition: wait until `text` appears on screen, with an example motivating it. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the immediate `snapshot` sibling by noting it returns the 'settled snapshot', though it never names the alternative outright.
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?
Gives a use case (after a slow screen transition), which implies when to prefer this over a plain snapshot. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the text never appears, and no sibling named as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.