wait_for_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool polls via ui_dump, retries until the text appears, and stops after timeout_seconds. This gives an agent a clear mental model of the blocking/retry behavior, though exact failure behavior on timeout is only implied.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, then explains the intended use case and the alternative. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields or titles.

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 simple and the description covers the core behavior, timeout, and the relevant alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented serial parameter, but the overall description still gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly in typical cases.

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 does explain text (target text to wait for) and timeout_seconds (maximum wait duration), but it completely omits the serial parameter, which remains ambiguous for agents working across multiple devices. This is a notable gap in an otherwise helpful description.

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 what the tool does: it waits until a given text appears on screen by repeatedly performing ui_dump. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from wait_for_element, so an agent can differentiate it from the most similar sibling tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance on when to use this tool: instead of hardcoding a fixed wait, poll until the expected UI element/text appears, bounded by timeout_seconds. It also points to wait_for_element as the alternative for element-based waiting by resource-id or class.

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