Wait For App

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it does not launch, terminate, or change the app. It also adds the specific behavioral detail that it waits for foreground and/or visible UI target, which aligns with the read-only nature. The description does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about non-mutating behavior.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only clarification follows immediately. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 the tool's complexity (nested waitFor object, four parameters, no output schema), the description provides only the high-level purpose. It does not explain how to specify conditions, what happens on timeout, or how it differs from similar tools. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks usage guidance for complex scenarios. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the waitFor structure or how to combine conditions, leaving the schema to carry the full burden. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 verb and resource: 'Wait until an app is in the foreground and/or an exact visible UI target appears.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like launching or listing apps. The read-only qualifier further differentiates it from mutation tools.

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 when to use it (when you need to wait for a UI condition) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like mobile_launch_and_ready likely serve a similar waiting purpose, but the description does not contrast with them. No exclusion criteria are given.

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