ios_wait_for

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns as soon as the condition holds, and it reports failure rather than raising an exception, making timeouts more predictable. This is genuinely useful context for an agent reasoning about execution outcomes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It states what the tool does, when to prefer it, and how it behaves on timeout without wasting words.

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?

For a simple tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all the behavioral information an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is sibling differentiation, but that is not essential given the clarity of the description.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds contextual meaning around waiting and timeout behavior but does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: waiting for something to appear or disappear. It is not a tautology and gives the core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like ios_observe or ios_read_text.

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 gives clear usage context by saying 'Prefer this over guessing a sleep' and explains the advantage: it returns as soon as the condition holds. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools beyond the sleep comparison, so it is not a full when-to-use guide.

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