wait_for_ui

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it does not verify correctness of the resulting state and is deterministic. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it lacks edge-case or error behavior details.

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 well-structured into clear sections (Purpose, Capabilities, Constraints, Recommended Usage) with no redundancy. Minor inefficiency: the phrase about deterministic element resolution appears twice.

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?

Given 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides high-level purpose and constraints but lacks details on parameter interplay, return value, and error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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 only 25% (only 'contains' subfield described). The description does not explain parameters like match, retry, selector, condition, or timeout beyond their schema defaults, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 resolves elements and detects UI transitions/conditions, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wait_for_screen_change by focusing on element-level synchronization.

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?

Explicit recommended usage steps are provided: resolve element, call action, then verify with expect_*. Also states a constraint: not to be used alone when expect_* exists, providing clear when-to-use and when-not.

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