Waits until the screen stops changing across two equal frames for a set duration, or returns when the timeout expires, helping synchronize actions with a stable Safari view.
Wait until the screen stops changing (two frames equal for stable_for seconds) or the timeout ends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| stable_for | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by disclosing the frame-comparison stability mechanism, the stable_for duration, and the timeout fallback. It does not clarify whether timeout is treated as an error or normal completion, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 that front-loads the core behavior and includes only relevant details. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 simple two-parameter wait tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main mechanism. However, it leaves out default behavior, timeout units, and what a timeout result means, which are relevant for correct invocation and interpretation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains stable_for as a seconds-based stability threshold and timeout as an end condition, but it does not specify units for timeout, default values, or how the two parameters interact beyond the basic condition.
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 states a specific action and condition: wait until the screen stops changing, defined as two equal frames lasting stable_for seconds, or until timeout. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from related waiting tools such as wait or wait_for.
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 explains the waiting condition but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like wait, wait_for, or screenshot. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.