wait_for_idle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the blocking condition, the quiet-window requirement, and the timeout fallback. It does not state whether timeout produces an error or a return value, but an output schema exists and the core wait semantics are transparent.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines the wait condition and the second gives the exact usage position. Every sentence earns its place and key units are front-loaded.

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 simple synchronization tool, this is complete: it defines what is waited on, the timeout safeguard, and the typical call context. With an output schema available, the description need not explain return values, and nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 covers pid thoroughly, while the description adds meaning for the other two parameters by specifying quiet_ms in milliseconds and timeout in seconds. Combined, the semantics of all three parameters are recoverable, despite only 33% schema description 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?

States a specific behavior: wait until the app's UI has been quiet for quiet_ms ms or until timeout seconds elapse. The parenthetical 'no layout/paint activity' precisely defines idle and gives the agent a clear criterion to distinguish it from a readiness-style sibling like wait_until_ready.

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?

Explicitly says to call after a click or action that triggers async work and before taking a screenshot, giving the agent a clear trigger context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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