wait_for_pick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does explain waiting, returning the selected position, and returning immediately if a pick already exists. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens when no pick occurs, or whether the call mutates or persists any internal pick state.

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 concise sentences cover the action, the preferred usage context, and a key optimization. Each sentence is useful, there is no redundant repetition of the schema, and the primary behavior is front-loaded.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description communicates the basic interaction well. Still, it leaves out the return value's concrete shape (e.g., coordinates versus element reference) and fails to state what occurs after timeout, which are relevant for an agent deciding how to handle the response.

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?

The schema already fully documents timeout_sec with a clear summary and default value. The description adds the contextual fast-path condition, but it does not add new meaning to the parameter itself, so this dimension stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 defines a specific verb and resource: it waits until a person taps on the screen and then returns that spot. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as latest_pick or clear_picks, but the wait-for-interaction behavior is semantically distinct enough for the reader to understand the tool's core function.

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 explicit usage direction: instead of asking 'where should I fix it', call this tool. It also notes the immediate-return behavior when a pick already exists, which guides the agent in expecting a likely cheap call or a potentially blocking wait depending on state.

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