wait_for_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting and returning text context but does not describe timeout behavior (despite a timeout parameter), failure conditions, polling semantics, or what 'visible text context' precisely includes. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the primary action. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains zero superfluous 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?

Given three parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and only a vague output description, the tool is underdocumented. The description does not address device selection, timeout outcomes, or the exact structure of the returned text context, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it in diverse scenarios.

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 clarify parameters. It implicitly explains 'text' (the text to wait for) but does not clarify 'device' or 'timeout' (units, semantics, or behavior). The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 waits for text to appear and returns visible text context, identifying the core function with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'wait' or 'find_on_screen', so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'wait' or 'find_on_screen'. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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