wait

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 discloses the default timeout, the ability to extend it, and the distinct semantics of stable waiting versus condition-based waiting. It does not state whether a timeout results in an error or what the return shape is, but the core behavior an agent must understand before calling is present.

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 dense sentences deliver the full purpose, mode guidance, and timeout behavior with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

Despite 27 parameters, the description covers the essential wait-specific decisions: which mode to use and the timeout behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and many shared parameters are already documented in the schema. It leaves minor gaps around exact parameter names for duration and quiet window, but is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most 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 coverage is only 59%, and several wait-critical parameters (kind, durationMs, quietMs, timeoutMs, stable) lack descriptions. The description compensates by explaining what 'duration', 'text', 'ref', 'selector', and 'stable' modes mean, and by relating the quiet window and timeout budget to the wait behavior. It does not explicitly map 'duration' to durationMs or 'budget' to timeoutMs, but it adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') and identifies concrete target resources: duration, text, snapshot ref, selector, and stable UI. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, snapshot, or is by framing it as a readiness/synchronization operation rather than a query or assertion.

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 explicit mode-selection guidance: text, ref, or selector for specific readiness conditions, and stable for waiting until the UI quiets. It also explains the 90-second timeout and how a caller-supplied budget extends it. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with non-wait alternatives like polling via get or snapshot, but the internal usage guidance is clear and actionable.

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