wait

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds context by explaining it's a non-interactive timing mechanism meant to be inserted between other actions, which is helpful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place and it's appropriately brief for such a simple tool.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter utility tool with a clear output schema, full schema coverage, and appropriate annotations. The description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, when to use it, and the parameter semantics are in the schema. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'ms' is well-described in the schema as 'Milliseconds to wait'. The description doesn't add parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which is fine given the schema already fully documents the one parameter. 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?

The description clearly states it waits for a specified number of milliseconds. It names the resource (time) and the specific action (wait), which distinguishes it from sibling interaction tools. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 second sentence explicitly states when to use it: between actions to wait for animations, page loads, or network responses. It gives clear usage context though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like ui_wait_for_element, which serves a different purpose (waiting for UI elements vs. fixed delays).

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