wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'with progress,' hinting at some feedback mechanism, but doesn't detail what 'progress' entails (e.g., visual indicators, logs). It also omits behavioral aspects like whether the wait is blocking, if it can be interrupted, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Wait for specified number of seconds with progress.' It uses minimal words to convey the core function without any redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic action but lacks details on usage context and behavioral transparency. The output schema might handle return values, but the description doesn't explain what 'progress' means or operational constraints.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only defines 'seconds' as an integer with a default of 3, with 0% coverage in descriptions. The description clarifies that this parameter specifies the 'number of seconds' to wait, which is crucial for understanding its purpose, compensating for the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for specified number of seconds with progress.' It includes a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('seconds'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all browser automation related, while this is a timing utility.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like pausing between browser actions, handling loading times, or coordinating with other tools. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.

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