Android wait For

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

The description adds non-obvious behavioral details beyond the annotations: it polls every ~600 ms, and a timeout is a normal matched:false answer, not an error. It also reveals that it uses the same capture+OCR pipeline as android_find_text, which helps set expectations. These are valuable clarifications that the readOnly/idempotent annotations do not cover.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains polling, timeout semantics, and modes. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity without redundancy.

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 is quite complete for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema. It describes the polling behavior, timeout semantics, modes, and mentions the match result fields (text, confidence, pixel rect). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the exact return structure on non-match (e.g., whether 'matched' is always present), though it implies the shape via 'matched:false'. This is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats default values (e.g., timeout_ms default 8000, mode default 'appear') and serial fallback behavior, but adds little new meaning beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. It does provide helpful context around modes, but that's already in the schema. No significant extra value is added.

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 until text appears or disappears on a connected Android device, using OCR polling. It explicitly contrasts with android_find_text (which does a one-shot search) and mentions the OCR pipeline, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like android_find_text and android_tap_text.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool to gate an action on a condition, instead of looping android_find_text or sleeping a guessed number of seconds. It also explains when to use 'appear' vs 'disappear' with concrete examples (screen loaded, toast, spinner, dialog), providing clear usage context.

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