Wait For Nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the timeout branch and its return value ([]), which tells the agent this call can fail non-exceptionally after blocking. However, it omits poll-interval semantics, whether it blocks the caller, and which underlying find_nodes parameters are forwarded.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the core mechanism first and the fallback behavior in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves meaning unstated rather than trimmed of redundancy.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-coverage blocking tool with children semantics inherited from find_nodes, one sentence is not enough. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return shape, but the parameter model, polling behavior, and relationship to the near-identical wait-style siblings remain unexplained.

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% across 11 parameters (desc, text, device, on_screen, timeout, poll, class_name, resource_id, and the *_contains variants), yet the description explains none of them and only implies they are forwarded to find_nodes. The agent gets no help distinguishing text vs text_contains, on_screen, or the units/defaults of poll and timeout.

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 mechanism (poll find_nodes until a match) and names the base tool it wraps, so the agent knows this is a blocking/polling variant of find_nodes rather than a one-shot query. It stops short of differentiating itself from other wait-style siblings such as wait_for_text or wait_for_screen_change, which also match on conditions.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over find_nodes, find_nodes_on_screen, wait_for_text, or wait_for_screen_change. The 'until something matches' phrasing implies a wait-for-appearance use case, but the agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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