wait_for_load_state

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing a key behavioral trait: it checks current readyState first and only waits for an event if the target state is not reached. It also explains the three states clearly. No contradictory annotations exist.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful behavioral detail and state definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, timeout failure behavior, or error handling. While the action is simple and the schema covers all parameters, an agent might not know what happens on timeout or whether the function returns a status.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds significant value by expanding on the 'state' parameter with explanations of what each enum value means ('load', 'domcontentloaded', 'networkidle'), which goes beyond the schema's brief 'State to wait for'.

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 and resource ('Wait for page to reach a specific load state') and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling browser automation tools by focusing on load state synchronization. It also enumerates the possible states with definitions, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for waiting on page load states, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'perform_interaction' or 'execute_script'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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