Wait until text appears on screen

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool never throws and returns a structured object with matched, attempts, elapsedMs, and matchedNode. This provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first explains the polling mechanism, second explains the return value and non-throwing guarantee. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 return shape and behavior, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It mentions the polling and timeout behavior. The serial default is documented in the schema. A note about the default serial could be added, but the description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that matching applies to both text and contentDescription, which is not in the text parameter description. However, this is a minor addition; the schema already covers the parameters adequately.

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 polls UI dump until text or contentDescription matches, specifying the return object and behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like devilge_wait_for_resource_id and devilge_wait_for_idle.

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 implies usage for waiting for text, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like waiting for resource ID or idle. Given the sibling list, a brief when-to-use note would improve clarity, but the purpose is still clear.

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