page_waitTimeout

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a 'dumb sleep' and warns about misuse. Discloses that it's not for conditional waits. Does not contradict any annotations.

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 with clear warning and alternative reference. No wasted words; front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. Description covers basic purpose and usage guidelines but doesn't explain return value or behavior besides being a sleep. For a simple tool, this is adequate but could include more about side effects or default behavior.

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 50% (2 params, one with nested connection object). Description only mentions 'milliseconds' implicitly ('等待指定的毫秒数'), but doesn't add details about the connection parameter or provide syntax/format beyond schema. Does not compensate for low schema coverage.

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 ('等待') and resource ('毫秒数'), and clearly states it's a 'dumb sleep'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'mp_pollUntil' by specifying use cases: short waits with no clear signal vs. waiting for conditions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (仅用于「渲染 tick 留白」等无明确信号的极短等待) and when not to use (等任意条件...请改用 mp_pollUntil). Also warns about risks of too short/timing issues.

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