android_uiautomator_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool waits for an element to appear, implying a blocking operation with a timeout, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like what happens on timeout (e.g., returns error or null), whether it polls continuously, or if it requires specific device states. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Wait for a UI element to appear by resource ID.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs a potentially complex waiting operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., success/failure, element details), error conditions, or dependencies like device connectivity. For a 3-parameter tool with behavioral implications, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (resourceId, timeoutMs, deviceSerial). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying resourceId is the key input. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Wait for a UI element to appear by resource ID.' It specifies the verb ('wait') and resource ('UI element'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like android_uiautomator_find, which might also locate elements. The description is specific but lacks sibling comparison.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active Android device connection, or compare it to siblings like android_uiautomator_find for immediate element retrieval. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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