wait_window

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the tool blocks until a window appears, but it does not explain timeout behavior, matching semantics for name/title/session_id, or what happens on failure. These are meaningful gaps for a wait operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, so it is highly concise even though it is not comprehensive.

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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It leaves unclear how to combine parameters, what the default session means, what occurs after a timeout, and how this tool differs from other wait-related siblings.

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 any of the four parameters (name, title, timeout, session_id). An agent cannot infer what each parameter means or how they interact with the waiting behavior.

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 action and resource: 'Wait until a client window appears.' It is clear about the tool's objective and is reasonably distinguishable from sibling wait tools like wait_object and wait_form, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use wait_window versus closely related tools such as wait_object, wait_form, wait_form_closed, or wait_client_idle. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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