da_wait_for_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses blocking behavior, timeout defaults/max, match strategies (case-insensitive substring, exact, regex full match), polling interval defaults/bounds, and NOT_FOUND error on timeout.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter details, then error/usage. Each sentence adds unique, non-redundant information without unnecessary length.

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?

For a blocking wait tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-contained: it explains behavior, defaults, error conditions, and usage context (after da_launch) while referencing da_window_list. No critical gaps remain.

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 0%, but the description adds critical meaning for every parameter: title matching, match strategy semantics, timeout/interval defaults and bounds, and error behavior. This goes well beyond the raw schema properties.

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+resource formulation: 'Block until a window with a matching title appears in da_window_list'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like da_wait_for_text and da_window_list.

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?

Provides explicit contextual guidance: 'use this after da_launch to wait for a newly-spawned app to finish painting before clicking inside it.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for exclusion cases.

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