wait_visual_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: a timeout is not an error, the response carries ok/changed plus a final screen snapshot, and `exited` is only true in a detect_child_exit session. It does not describe detection granularity or polling behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and usage in the first clause, with the return-shape detail following. The timeout paragraph is dense but each clause adds real information; only minor trimming is possible.

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 steps up to document the return contract (ok, changed, screen snapshot, exited) and the non-error timeout case. Combined with baseline and usage guidance, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it partly does: it explains that a prior hash is passed or omitted to baseline on the current render, and that timeout is non-fatal. However, it refers to the baseline parameter as `visual_hash` while the schema names it `baseline_hash`, which risks mis-mapping, and no units or defaults are given for timeout_ms.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) and a precise resource (visual change), then enumerates what counts as a change: text, selection styling, or cursor position. Against a sibling set full of other `wait_*` tools, this tells the agent exactly what this one observes.

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?

"Prefer this after arrow/navigation keys in full-screen TUIs" gives a concrete triggering context. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling wait_change / wait_any / wait_ready tools, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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