wait_until_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does so well: it defines 'ready' operationally, says the tool returns a readiness snapshot, and states a significant non-behavior 'does not launch anything.' It does not spell out timeout failure behavior, but the core side-effect-free waiting semantics are clear.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted wording. The readiness definition is front-loaded, followed by usage, return value, and an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 wait utility with an output schema, the description covers the main condition, the trigger to call it, and the return value. The only meaningful omission is the behavior/units of the timeout parameter and a direct pointer to wait_for_idle as an alternative, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema gives a full description for pid, and the description provides meaningful semantics for quiet_ms (the quiet duration). Timeout, however, has no explanation of units or behavior, and schema coverage is only 33%, so the description does not fully compensate.

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 names a specific operation and resource: waiting until the app UI reaches a defined ready state (visible top-level window quiet for quiet_ms). It is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling wait_for_idle, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to use the tool after an action that reloads or rebuilds the UI and clarifies that the tool does not launch the app. It does not mention when_not to use it or directly compare with wait_for_idle, but the main usage context is unambiguous.

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