ui_wait_for

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description confirms polling behavior and timeout, adding useful detail without contradiction. The description enhances transparency by explaining the polling interval.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and polling details, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, and parameters, but fails to explain return values or behavior on timeout (e.g., returns null or raises error). Given the lack of output schema, this gap reduces completeness. Overall adequate but missing critical details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief parameter descriptions. However, most are just repeating parameter names (e.g., 'automation_id: AutomationId to wait for'), adding little meaning. Timeout gets a default value note, and xpath notes backend limitation. This is adequate but not enriching.

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 tool waits for a UI element within a timeout, with polling behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like ui_find_element by focusing on waiting rather than immediate search.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('dialog, popups, or dynamically created elements'), but does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives like ui_find_element. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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