Waits for a specified Windows desktop window to appear before continuing automation; uses title and optional text, returning when the window is found or the timeout expires.
Windows AutoIt winWait. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Window text | |
| title | Yes | Window title | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds (1-25; default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real environmental prerequisites (trusted owner, interactive Windows x64 desktop) that the annotations don't convey. It does not disclose blocking/polling behavior, whether it throws or returns on timeout, or what a match yields.
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?
Two short sentences, appropriately sized and front-loaded. However the first sentence is a tautological restatement of the name and earns no place, so the economy comes partly from under-specification rather than tight writing.
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 blocking wait tool with no output schema, the description never says whether it blocks until the window appears, what happens on timeout, or what it returns (handle, boolean, or error). Given no output schema exists to carry that load, the description leaves a significant behavioral gap for an agent deciding how to sequence winWait in a script.
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 title, text, and timeout are already documented including the 1-25 second range and default. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Windows AutoIt winWait" restates the tool name rather than describing the operation; the agent must already know AutoIt semantics to infer that it waits for a window to appear. With siblings winWaitActive and winWaitClose present, no differentiation between the three wait variants is offered.
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?
No guidance on when to use winWait versus winWaitActive, winWaitClose, or winExists; the agent is left to infer the distinction from AutoIt knowledge alone. The environment prerequisite (interactive desktop) is stated, which is context but not usage selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.