textual_wait_for

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the types of conditions that can be waited on. However, it does not disclose important behavioral details such as timeout behavior, whether the tool blocks until condition is met, or what happens on failure (e.g., error vs. timeout). The output schema exists but is not referenced to clarify return values.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it is overly terse and lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points for conditions). It does not fully earn its place as the sole narrative for the tool.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and a rich domain (UI automation), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (output schema exists but is not detailed), how selectors and text are used, or the behavior of the timeout parameter. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.

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 only partially addresses the 'condition' parameter by listing its possible values (idle, animation, workers, widget). Other parameters (session_id, selector, text, timeout) are not explained at all. The agent cannot infer semantics for these from the description alone.

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's purpose: 'Wait for a condition' and lists the specific condition types (idle, animation, workers, widget). This provides a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like textual_query or textual_snapshot, which might also involve waiting or checking states.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, scenarios where waiting is appropriate, or when to choose another tool (e.g., textual_check_errors). The agent is left without context for decision-making.

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