wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important detail that the wait is capped at 10000 ms (implying early return once the UI settles), but does not say whether it blocks the caller, what happens if ms exceeds the cap, or whether the tool actually polls the UI versus sleeping blindly.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the operative concept (waiting for UI settle) is front-loaded with the constraint trailing. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive tool this is close to adequate, but two things an agent would want are missing: what 'settle' is actually detected by, and what the tool returns or does on timeout (no output schema exists, so the description could have covered it).

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents ms as 'Milliseconds', so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by establishing the effective upper bound ('up to 10000 ms'), which is real semantic information an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 verb and effect: 'Wait for the UI to settle', which tells an agent this is a delay/synchronization primitive rather than an observation tool. It is not explicitly differentiated from the adjacent siblings (read_screen, wait_for_install), but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 phrase 'for the UI to settle' implies the use case (pausing after an action before reading or tapping), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of wait_for_install as the alternative for install-related waiting. Usage must be inferred from the siblings list.

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