computer_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the unit, and the valid range (1-300000), and notes the return is a JSON response. It doesn't mention whether the call is synchronous, whether it can be interrupted, or any side effects, but for a simple wait operation the disclosed details are reasonably sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, and the parameter details are organized in a short Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the unit warning is a valuable addition without bloat.

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 two-parameter wait tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does, the unit, the range, and the source of serialno. It could mention whether the wait is blocking or how the response is structured, but the output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains serialno as coming from list_devices and milliseconds as the block duration in milliseconds with a range. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't describe the exact format of the JSON response.

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 states a specific verb ('Block') and resource ('for a duration'), and clarifies its purpose as a pacing mechanism between script steps. It is distinguishable from siblings like computer_bash or mobile_bash, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

The description gives clear context: 'useful between steps in a script' and explicitly contrasts the milliseconds unit with computer_bash's timeout in seconds. It doesn't enumerate when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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