iOS Simulator: Wait For Element

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description earns substantial credit beyond it: the warning that an MCP client's own request timeout "will cut this call off before timeout_ms does," the polling semantics, and the "give exactly one of" constraint. No contradiction with the annotation — polling and observing are inherently non-destructive.

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?

Three sentences with purpose front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence earns its place: the settle_ms exclusion prevents a common misuse and the client-timeout note is a necessary caveat. It is dense, with the timeout caveat arguably better placed after the parameter rule, but there is no waste.

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 an 8-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, parameter exclusivity, and an external failure mode. The remaining gap is the return contract — nothing states what a timeout or successful wait returns beyond the optional screenshot — but this is minor and largely inferable from the polling semantics.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries a rich description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuinely non-derivable constraint — "Give exactly one of id, label or predicate" — and points to ios_simulator_tap_element as the convention reference, which raises it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in the opening clause — "Poll until an element appears, or until it goes away" — covering both wait directions immediately. It positions itself as "the tool for a screen that loads" and explicitly contrasts with the settle_ms pause on action tools, so an agent can tell it apart from the tap/action siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ("a generation step, a network round trip, a long import") alongside an explicit when-not-to: settle_ms "caps at ten seconds — it is not a wait, and using it as one is how you end up verifying a server instead of the screen." It names the alternative pattern it is not, which is the strongest possible routing guidance.

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