wait_for_screen_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool blocks and that a timeout can end the wait, but it does not clarify what happens on timeout, whether the 'last observed state' persists across calls, or what is returned after the screen changes.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the core behavior. The Args section is minimal but sufficient for the single parameter, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main entry point: what it waits for and how long. However, it leaves ambiguity around the meaning of 'last observed state,' which is essential context for an agent to know when the tool can be called and what it compares against.

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?

The schema only provides the parameter name, type, and default, while the description adds the semantic meaning 'Seconds to wait.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by clearly defining the unit and purpose of the timeout parameter.

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 identifies a specific operation: blocking execution until the screen changes from its last observed state or a timeout elapses. It is distinct enough from siblings like wait_for_text, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any named alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_for_text, get_screen, or check_for_errors. The description explains what the tool does but not the situations that call for it or when it should be avoided.

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