wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the matching method (normalised cross-correlation over the whole frame, score 1.0 = identical) and the return contents, which is genuine behavioural context. It omits blocking semantics, what happens on timeout, and permission requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the mode switch, followed by the matching detail. No filler, though the parenthetical mode note could be folded more cleanly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly covers return values (location, score, frame). But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the timeout and min_score parameters remain undocumented, leaving the agent short of what it needs to call the tool well.

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. It explains template (via 'saved template') and gone=true, and clarifies the score scale relevant to min_score, but leaves min_score's threshold meaning and timeout_ms entirely unexplained.

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: waits until a saved template appears on screen, with a clear inverse mode via gone=true. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling wait_for_change, leaving the agent to infer the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when to use it (polling for a template's presence/absence) and notes the gone=true alternative mode. However, it never says when to prefer this over wait_for_change or snapshot, and gives no guidance on timeout behaviour or failure conditions.

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