simscale_wait_for_text

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, disclosing the safety profile. The description adds that it waits for visible text, but it does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., throws an error) or whether it returns any value. Given the existing annotations, the description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail, warranting a 3.

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, focused sentence. It front-loads the core action ('Wait for visible SimScale text') and adds a useful use-case clause. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 wait tool, the description covers the purpose and typical scenarios. However, it does not explain timeout behavior or failure semantics, which are critical for an agent to know whether the action will block or error. The schema has timeout_ms, but the description does not integrate it. This leaves a noticeable gap for a complete understanding.

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 compensate. It implicitly clarifies that the 'text' parameter refers to the visible text to wait for, but it says nothing about 'timeout_ms', its default, or its meaning as a maximum wait duration. The schema provides names and constraints, but the description falls short of fully clarifying parameter semantics.

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: "Wait for visible SimScale text". This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, fill, or screenshot, which perform different UI actions. It also provides context on when it's useful (CAD imports, meshing, run status transitions), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: "useful for CAD imports, meshing, and run status transitions" suggests when to invoke this wait tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. Since sibling tools include page_state and edge_status which might be used for checking state, the lack of exclusions keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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