Wait for an element to become visible using a locator strategy, with optional timeout. Ensures UI readiness before proceeding with mobile tests.
Wait until a locator becomes visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locator | Yes | ||
| serverUrl | No | ||
| sessionId | Yes | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only says 'wait until visible' but doesn't disclose timeout behavior, polling interval, what happens on timeout (throws exception?), or whether it returns anything. This is insufficient for a wait operation.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it's so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns high marks for conciseness but at the cost of completeness.
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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent doesn't know what happens if the element never becomes visible, how long to wait by default, or what the return value indicates. The sibling tools suggest a testing context, but the description doesn't provide sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It doesn't mention timeoutMs, serverUrl, or the locator structure. The agent only gets the schema enum for strategy, but no semantics for timeout. The description adds no parameter meaning.
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 function: waiting for a locator to become visible. It uses a specific verb 'wait' and identifies the resource (locator visibility). It distinguishes from siblings like appium.assert_visible which likely check visibility immediately, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for waiting before actions, or that assert_visible is for immediate checks. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.