comet_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'wait' and does not explain timeout behavior, whether it polls for visibility, what happens when both selector and seconds are provided, or whether it blocks. For an agent deciding how to handle a wait failure, this is a significant gap.

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 maximally economical: one summary sentence followed by a structured two-entry Args list. There is no filler or repetition, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so some leanness is acceptable. However, the description lacks important context such as expected usage relative to sibling actions, what happens if the element never appears, and the effect of passing neither argument. These are clear gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 provides zero description coverage, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that selector is a CSS selector and seconds is a fixed duration, covering both parameters effectively. It stops short of clarifying interaction or precedence when both are supplied, but for a two-parameter tool this is adequate.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for a specific element or a fixed duration.' It also distinguishes two modes of operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of context like waiting after navigation. The description only states the raw action, leaving the agent to infer that waiting is possibly needed for synchronization with other navigation or interaction tools.

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