ui_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the core wait condition but omits important behavior such as what happens on timeout, whether the tool blocks, and what it returns or raises when the element never appears.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The condition and the gone variant are stated immediately, and every clause contributes.

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 an 8-parameter wait tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It leaves out timeout semantics, failure behavior, and return-value information that an agent would need to use the tool confidently.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the gone=true behavior, which is useful but does not add much beyond the schema's own explanation; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: wait until an element appears, with an explicit disappearance variant via gone=true. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ui_find tool, which likely serves a similar UI-element-location purpose.

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 usage: call this when you need to wait for an element to appear or disappear. It does not explicitly say when to prefer ui_wait over ui_find, ui_screenshot, or other UI inspection tools, so the guidance remains implicit.

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