Wait

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the wait exists to let UI transitions settle, and it sends no input. This enriches the annotation profile without contradicting it.

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?

Two purposeful sentences front-load the core purpose and usage context, then add the verification follow-up and the behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no-input pausing tool with strong annotations and a fully described schema, the description covers why, when, and how to confirm the result. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 the only parameter (seconds) is already fully documented with default and maximum. The description does not need to repeat this, but it also adds no additional nuance about how the parameter interacts with wait behavior. Baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Pause') and gives concrete use cases (page loads, animations, dialogs opening, apps launching), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does. It also separates this action-oriented tool from siblings like get_app_state or screenshot by noting it 'sends no input.'

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: before the next action when the UI needs to catch up. It also advises following up with get_app_state or screenshot to confirm the new state instead of guessing, giving actionable post-wait guidance. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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