wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the three wait conditions and that selector/text waits are conditional on page state, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention default timeouts (10000ms for selector/text), the 30000ms cap on 'ms', or what happens on timeout, though some of that is in the schema parameter descriptions.

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?

One sentence, under 20 words, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the three modes. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details. Highly efficient.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover usage and behavior. It does a good job covering the three primary modes and their conditions. It falls short on timeout behavior, defaults, and the role of tabId, but given that the schema covers most parameters and this is a straightforward wait utility, it is nearly complete.

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 80%, meaning the schema already documents ms, text, timeout, and selector. The description provides the same mapping (ms→time, selector→matches, text→contains) without adding syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond the schema. The tabId parameter is undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb-resource: 'Wait for time and/or page state.' It further clarifies the three modes (ms, selector, text), which distinguishes it from most siblings in this browser-automation toolbox. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but no sibling tool overlaps with waiting functionality, so differentiation is adequately implied.

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?

Gives clear context for each mode: 'Provide ms, or selector (until it matches), or text (until the page contains it).' This tells the agent exactly which parameter to use for which scenario. It doesn't state when to avoid the tool or when another tool is preferable, but the lack of an overlapping sibling makes such guidance less critical.

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