Touchpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the polling mechanism ('Polls the window list'), the matching logic (substring), and the dual-mode behavior (appear vs disappear). It does not describe what happens when the timeout is reached (error vs false return), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose (first sentence), mechanism (second), usage guidance (third), and a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes value; no redundancy with the schema or annotations exists.

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 description adequately covers all 4 parameters and the core behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described here. Minor gap: timeout failure behavior is not explained in the description (though likely covered by the output 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?

Critical given 0% schema description coverage. The Args section adds essential semantics: 'title' is a substring match, 'app' restricts the search scope, 'timeout' has explicit units (seconds), and 'gone' inverts the wait logic. Without these descriptions, the agent would lack crucial behavioral details.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Wait for a window') and clearly scopes the operation to 'appear or disappear' states. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wait_for' and 'wait_for_app' by explicitly targeting window-level events rather than general delays or application-level waits.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after actions that open or close windows.' This provides clear temporal context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'wait_for_app' to clarify when to prefer this tool over the app-level alternative.

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