filmora_wait

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the wait is "bounded" (it will return rather than block indefinitely) and that render/UI state may still be changing, which the annotations do not convey. It omits the actual bound/max duration, keeping it at a 3.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the purpose leads and the expected follow-up action trails clearly.

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 trivial one-parameter wait tool, annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers purpose plus follow-up. The missing piece is any detail about the timing parameter, which is left entirely to a bare schema.

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?

There is one parameter (seconds, default 1) with 0% schema coverage. The description never mentions the parameter, its unit, acceptable range, or that it defaults to 1 second, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. Only the self-evident name 'seconds' makes it interpretable at all.

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 (UI/render changes) plus a scope qualifier (bounded). It is clearly distinguishable from read/inspect siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

"Follow with screenshot or inspection" gives concrete sequencing guidance, telling the agent this is a prerequisite step before capturing or inspecting state. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it or naming a specific alternative tool, so it is not a full 5.

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