wait_ready

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the return reason values ('MARKER', 'STABLE', 'TIMEOUT'), that timeout returns ok=true, and the right-padding caveat affecting marker matching. This adds substantial context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations and does not contradict them.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the primary purpose, followed by a parameter usage note, then return behavior and a critical caveat. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (snapshot plus reason with possible values), timeout semantics, and the right-padding pitfall. It covers the tool's complexity well and provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does for the marker parameter by explaining it is a regex, should be unanchored, and how to use it for stability-only. It also implies timeout behavior (max_wait_ms) and quiet stability (quiet_ms). However, it does not explicitly describe sid, quiet_ms, or max_wait_ms by name, leaving some reliance on naming conventions.

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 a specific action: 'Wait for a regex marker OR for the screen to go quiet (stable), then snapshot.' It uses a specific verb, resource (screen), and condition (regex or stability), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling wait tools by combining both conditions. The additional note 'Use marker="" to wait purely for stability' further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, including the variant 'Use marker="" to wait purely for stability.' It also explains timeout behavior ('Timeout is not an error'), which is important usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives like wait_regex or wait_change.

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