Pause automation until a target window becomes active, optionally timing out after a set number of seconds.
Windows AutoIt winWaitActive. 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 provide the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description usefully adds the runtime precondition of a trusted owner on an interactive x64 desktop. However, it omits the core behavioral trait of a wait tool: it blocks until the window is active or the timeout elapses, and it doesn't say what the call 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?
Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the "Windows AutoIt winWaitActive" fragment merely echoes the name and does not earn its place. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.
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?
With no output schema, the description must explain the return value and wait semantics, but it says nothing about what happens on success, on timeout, or what is returned. For a blocking wait tool with three parameters, the definition is materially incomplete.
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% (title, text, timeout all documented with default and range), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about how title/text matching works or how timeout interacts with the wait, leaving the baseline 3.
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 winWaitActive" largely restates the tool name rather than explaining what it does. It never states the actual verb+resource (waits until a window becomes active) nor distinguishes it from siblings like winWait, winWaitClose, winActivate, or winActive.
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 this versus the many adjacent window-wait tools (winWait, winWaitClose, winActive). The environment precondition (trusted owner, interactive Windows x64 desktop) is the only contextual hint and is a prerequisite, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.