verify_screen_loaded

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the blocking wait behavior and the return value on both success and timeout ('Returns true when screen loads or false on timeout'). This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not detail polling behavior or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or vague wording. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 relatively simple tool, the description covers the essential behavior. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could say more about edge cases (e.g., invalid selectors), what constitutes 'loaded' (visible vs. present), and how it relates to sibling verification tools. The lack of this context leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters: timeout_ms ('Maximum time to wait for screen') and screen_marker ('Element query that uniquely identifies the screen'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Wait for a specific screen to load by checking for a marker element.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_element_present, which focuses on a single element rather than a screen-level condition.

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 implies usage when you need to ensure a screen is ready before proceeding, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_element_present or find_element. No comparisons or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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