wait_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavior ('returns instantly on match', title-change-based waiting), but it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens on no match, whether it polls, or whether it has side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant restating 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?

For a wait tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The 'target' parameter is undocumented, the relationship between 'target' and 'title_contains' is unclear, and timeout failure behavior is not addressed.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It explains title_contains only through an inline example, gives no meaning for 'target' at all, and does not clarify the timeout semantics beyond the schema's default value.

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 window to exist or reach a title, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_windows, focus_window, and wait_text. It is specific enough about the resource and the condition, though the meaning of the 'target' parameter is left implicit.

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 clear context for use: after launch_app or navigation, with title change as the load signal, and positions the tool as a replacement for blind sleeps. It does not explicitly name alternatives like wait_text or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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