zen_wait_for_result

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

Covers polling behavior, timeout, and interval, but lacks details on what 'non-empty' means (truthy vs non-null), error handling, or that the expression runs in page context. As there are no annotations, the description carries full burden but is incomplete.

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: a single-line purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description omits any explanation of what the tool returns (e.g., the result value, type, or structure). While inputs are well-covered, the output behavior is entirely missing.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the docstring adds meaningful explanations for all four parameters: code, timeout, poll_interval, and tab_id. It clarifies their roles and defaults beyond the schema titles.

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 polls a JavaScript expression until a non-empty result, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like zen_js (one-time execution) and other wait tools.

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 implies usage for waiting on JS expressions but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like zen_wait_for_element or zen_js. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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