wait_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains internal polling, single-call completion, case-insensitive matching, window targeting behavior (specific window vs active window), and timeout behavior, all beyond what the schema conveys. This is strong transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: core behavior first, then parameter semantics, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage context well. However, it does not clarify what happens when title_contains is null despite being optional in the schema, nor the timeout unit. Since there is an output schema, return format is not a concern, but these two gaps slightly reduce completeness.

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%, and the description compensates for all three parameters: title_contains (case-insensitive matching), window_id (scoping to a specific window or active window), and timeout (timeout returns a timeout message). However, it does not specify the timeout unit (seconds vs milliseconds), which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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: waiting for a window title to meet a condition, with server-side polling in a single call. This makes the tool's function obvious and distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool by name, so it misses the top score.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'for waiting for page load/app startup', and what it replaces: 'external repeated polling'. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to choose this tool over manual polling loops, satisfying the usage-guideline criterion.

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