wait

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: timeout returns met=false (not an error), and text_present requires exact case-insensitive substring matching. It also specifies optional region. This goes beyond a simple statement of effects, though it doesn't cover every edge case.

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 sentences deliver the core functionality, condition formats, timeout behavior, and matching rule without wasted words. The structure uses a compact notation that is readable.

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 description provides enough detail to use the tool correctly for its listed conditions and timeout behavior. Missing elements include a success return description and explicit usage comparisons, but the core semantics are covered.

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, and the description compensates by explaining the condition object variants ({type: 'duration'}, {type: 'text_present'}, {type: 'screen_stable'}). However, it does not reference the top-level duration_ms parameter or explicitly define timeout_ms semantics, leaving some schema properties under-explained.

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 identifies the tool as a wait operation with three explicit condition types, making its purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like verify or find_text, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 conveys when to use the tool (to wait for a duration, text, or stable screen) but provides no explicit guidance on choosing it over siblings like find_text or verify. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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