wait

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the purpose but does not explicitly state that the call blocks, what happens after the delay, or that it has no side effects. For a simple wait operation this is a minor gap, but still a gap.

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?

One concise sentence with the operation front-loaded and the purpose in a parenthetical. Every word adds value; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the parameter unit, and why to use it. It is nearly complete, but an explicit statement of return/behavior would push it to fully self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage with only an integer ms property, and the description compensates by explicitly linking ms to milliseconds. It does not give valid ranges or limits, but for a single-parameter wait tool, this is enough for correct invocation.

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 specified number of milliseconds and gives a concrete purpose (allowing time for service startup/interface refresh). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, which are all about opening, running, or inspecting apps and screens.

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 parenthetical '用于给服务启动/界面刷新留时间' tells the agent the intended use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but no sibling provides a sleep/wait operation, so the missing exclusion guidance is not a significant gap.

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