wait_for_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core waiting behavior but does not explain timeout behavior, return value, polling semantics, or whether it throws an error when the condition is not met. An agent cannot predict the outcome when the wait fails.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and enumerates the supported conditions compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what happens on timeout, whether the tool returns a boolean or throws, and any guidance on typical usage. The schema covers inputs well, but behavioral and outcome information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents selector, strategy, condition, and timeoutMs. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the condition options in prose. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 operation (wait) and the target (element), and lists the specific conditions supported. This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like click_element or fill_element, which perform direct actions rather than waiting.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used when an element must reach a certain state before proceeding, but it does not mention when not to use it, what happens on timeout, or how it relates to find_elements or other wait-like operations.

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