da_wait_for_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It details blocking behavior, timeout defaults and max, polling interval defaults and bounds, the NOT_FOUND error on timeout, and matching semantics (substring, fuzzy). This is comprehensive and goes beyond typical descriptions for wait tools.

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 concise but information-dense: three sentences that cover the core behavior, key parameters with defaults, error semantics, and a concrete usage example. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary fluff.

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 most essential aspects: purpose, matching strategy, polling, timeout, error, and intended usage. However, with no output schema, it does not state what the tool returns on success, and displayId's role is not clarified. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, but they prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains text (target), fuzzy (case-insensitive + whitespace-normalized), timeoutMs (default 5000, max 60000), and intervalMs (default 200, min 50, max 5000). However, displayId is not mentioned in the description, leaving its meaning dependent on reader familiarity with sibling tools or the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it blocks until a specified text appears on the screen, using OCR and UI-element classification. It mentions timeout behavior, and by comparing match strategy to da_click_text and da_find_text, it distinguishes itself as a waiting variant rather than a find/click tool.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this after a click / key / dialog-open to confirm the new state is painted before continuing.' It also notes that the match strategy is identical to other tools, implying consistent behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for non-blocking checks), so a clear exclusion is missing.

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