windows_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic state model (present/enabled/gone), which is useful, but says nothing about polling behavior, what timeoutMs does on expiry, or what the call returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the matching criteria. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

A 10-parameter blocking wait tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage demands more than two sentences. Timeout semantics, default 15s behavior, match-combination logic, and return shape are all missing, leaving the agent unable to predict behavior on failure.

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 only 20% (just pid and title), leaving eight parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates by naming the match keys (accessible name substring, AutomationId, control type), but it never explains state (present/gone), enabled, timeoutMs, maxElements, or includeOffscreen, and the 'and/or' matching logic between the three keys is ambiguous.

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+resource ('Wait for a semantic native Windows control') and enumerates the three wait conditions (appear, become enabled, disappear) plus the matching keys. It is clearly distinguishable from windows_list/windows_snapshot, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (call this before acting on a control that may not yet exist or be ready), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternatives mentioned, e.g. using windows_snapshot to check current state instead of blocking.

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