wait_for_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses blocking until match-or-timeout, case-insensitive matching, and screen-wide scope, but it does not state timeout semantics (e.g., success/failure/exception), leaving a gap.

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?

Extremely concise: the core behavior is front-loaded, followed by a two-item arg list. Every line adds useful information without repetition.

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 two-parameter wait tool, the essential call contract is covered and the output schema likely handles return values. However, missing guidance on alternatives and timeout/error behavior, combined with no annotation coverage, leaves some autonomy gaps.

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?

Adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema: pattern is 'literal text' and case-insensitive, timeout is 'seconds to wait' with a default. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is valuable, though no timeout range or validation rules are given.

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 blocking-wait operation on a literal pattern anywhere on screen with a timeout. The 'block until' phrasing and 'anywhere on screen' scope distinguish it from search-style siblings like find_text, but it never names alternatives explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. An agent must infer that this is for waiting rather than immediate lookup; siblings like find_text and wait_for_screen_change are never referenced.

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