wait_for_text

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only states that the tool waits for text; it does not disclose what happens on timeout (exception vs false return), whether the text is searched in visible/rendered content only, or whether it might throw if text is not found. Schema parameters hint at polling and timeout, but the outcome behavior remains undisclosed.

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 redundancy. It efficiently conveys the essential operation and scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps: return/termination behavior on timeout, how 'text' is matched, and when to choose this over wait_for_element or assert_text. The schema covers parameters well, but the operational contract is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it and what to expect.

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 schema already documents text, device_id, timeout_ms, and poll_interval_ms. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond implying the text is the target condition, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Wait until') and resource ('specific text appears anywhere on the screen'), so an agent can understand the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like wait_for_element or assert_text, but the 'text appears anywhere' phrasing provides enough distinction to be more than simply restating the name.

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 the usage context: use when you need to block until text appears on screen. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as wait_for_element, assert_text, or wait_for_activity, and no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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