Wait until a resource-id appears on screen

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

The description adds the behavioral trait of polling (repeated checks) beyond the annotation's readOnlyHint. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, default timeout behavior, or what happens on timeout. The annotations provide the safety profile (non-destructive, read-only), so the description adds some but limited context.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core action (polls) and the condition. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 covers the basic behavior (polls until found or timeout) but is incomplete in several aspects: it does not mention the return value (if any), error handling on timeout, or the fact that it requires a device serial. The context of Android UI automation is implicit from the tool name and siblings. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more clarity on what the tool returns.

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?

Since all three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), the description adds minimal additional semantics. It references the 'resource-id' parameter but does not explain the serial or timeoutMs parameters beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 that the tool polls the UI dump until a specific resource-id node appears, with a timeout. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools like wait_for_text that wait for text content.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_for_text or dump_ui. It does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The only implied usage is waiting for a resource-id, but no contextual advice is provided.

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