wait_client_idle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the simple waiting behavior and does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether it blocks, how it probes responsiveness, or what it returns on failure. This leaves important behavior undocumented.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. It is well structured, though it achieves conciseness by omitting useful behavioral and parameter details.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not complete enough. Missing timeout behavior, session relevance, and relationship to sibling wait tools leaves an agent without full context for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention timeout, interval, session_id, or probe_timeout. An agent must rely on parameter names and defaults alone, with no added meaning from the description.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: waiting until the 1C test client/bridge becomes responsive. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling wait tools like wait_object, wait_form, or wait_window, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'after a long or blocking UI action.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as the more specific wait tools.

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