wait_for_element

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: it searches a structured element list and supports resource-id matching. However, it does not state what happens on timeout, whether text matching is exact or substring, or explicitly confirm the operation is non-mutating.

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 description is concise and well-structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a focused sibling comparison. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, but some important gaps remain: the serial parameter is unexplained, matching semantics for text are unspecified, and timeout failure behavior is not outlined. The description is usable but not fully self-contained for an agent.

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 explains the text and resource-id criteria and references timeout_seconds, but it leaves 'serial' completely unexplained and does not clarify whether multiple criteria are AND/OR. Thus it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 the tool waits for an element (matched by text and/or resource-id) to appear on screen within a timeout. It distinguishes itself from wait_for_text by describing the structured element list search versus raw XML substring search, making its specific role unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with wait_for_text, noting that wait_for_text does raw XML substring search while this tool searches the structured element list and can wait for resource-id. This gives clear context for choosing between the two, though it does not address other sibling tools like wait, find_element, or wait_until_screen_changes.

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