Computer Wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: a pause of up to 10 seconds. However, it does not clarify whether the wait is blocking, how it behaves at the upper bound, or whether it can be interrupted, leaving some behavioral gaps for an operation with no annotation coverage.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the time limit and use cases are immediately visible.

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 simple wait tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, maximum duration, and typical scenarios. Minor gaps remain around blocking behavior and parameter bounds, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only documents type and default for the single optional "seconds" parameter. The description adds the important upper bound of 10 seconds, which is not in the schema, but it does not clarify minimum values, fractional seconds, or the default of 2.

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 uses a specific verb, "Pause," and scopes it to "up to 10s between actions," with examples of page loads and animations. It clearly distinguishes this timing tool from the action-oriented siblings such as computer_click and computer_type.

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?

It gives clear context for use: between actions, specifically for page loads and animations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage is easy to infer.

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