wait_visual_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: timeout is not an error, returns ok=true with changed=false plus the final screen snapshot, and explains how the baseline is chosen. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then timeout behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, baseline behavior, and timeout semantics. Since there is no output schema, it reasonably explains the return contract. Minor gap: 'visual_hash' is not formally defined, but the meaning is clear from context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains baseline_hash (referred to as 'visual_hash') and how to use it, but it does not explain sid at all. Timeout_ms is self-explanatory from its name and default. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 action: waiting for visual changes in text, selection styling, or cursor position. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like wait_regex, which focuses on textual patterns.

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 context: 'Prefer this after arrow/navigation keys in full-screen TUIs,' telling the agent when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the preference direction is clear and helpful.

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