wait_for_element

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 adds useful context about polling behavior ('Polls every 500ms'), which isn't in the schema, but doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, what happens on timeout, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and operational detail in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic operation. For a tool with 4 parameters and behavioral complexity (polling, timeout), it should ideally explain more about return values or failure modes, but it's adequate for the core functionality.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for a UI element to appear on screen.' It specifies the verb ('wait for') and resource ('UI element'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'tap_and_wait' or 'scroll_to_element' beyond the polling behavior mentioned.

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 mentions polling every 500ms but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other UI interaction tools or prerequisites for usage.

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