wait_ready

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the `reason` outcomes (MARKER/STABLE/TIMEOUT/EXITED), clarifies that timeout is not an error and still returns ok=true, explains the `exited` boolean, and warns that right-padded screen lines break end-anchored markers.

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 core behavior and the marker="" tip are front-loaded in the first two lines, and the return-value discussion follows logically. The parenthetical EXITED clause is slightly dense, but every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does so thoroughly via the `reason` enum and `exited` boolean. The remaining gap is operational detail on the timing parameters and the session id, which the agent must guess from names.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it defines `marker` as a regex with the empty-string stability mode, and references `max_wait_ms` (the wait bound) and the stability concept behind `quiet_ms`. Only `sid` and explicit units/defaults for the two timing params are left undocumented.

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 dual-capability verb: wait for a regex marker OR for screen stability, then snapshot. This implicitly distinguishes it from wait_regex (marker only) and wait_change/wait_visual_change (change-based), but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

'Use marker="" to wait purely for stability' is a concrete configuration directive, but it explains parameter usage rather than when to choose wait_ready over wait_regex, wait_any, or a plain snapshot. No when-not conditions or alternatives are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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