wait_for_ui_change

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the wait behavior, mentions returned 'snapshot_revision', scope-aware metadata, and failure handling. Lacks details on authorization or side effects, but as a wait tool, those are less critical.

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?

Well-organized with sections (Purpose, Inputs, Guidance, Failure Handling). Every sentence is informative. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundancy or 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?

Given 7 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter roles, usage preferences, and failure handling. An agent can effectively decide when and how to use this tool.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The 'Inputs' section lists parameters but adds little beyond the schema definitions. Some guidance is given (e.g., 'target is for subtree'), but no additional semantic depth.

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 explicitly states it waits for a non-navigation UI mutation or in-place update to become stable, and later distinguishes from wait_for_screen_change. The verb 'wait' and resource 'UI change' are specific, and the scope is clarified.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer wait_for_screen_change for navigation transitions. Prefer wait_for_ui_change for in-place mutations.' Also includes a Failure Handling section describing TIMEOUT behavior.

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