等待

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a permission note clarifying the wait is a read-only operation that generates no network requests, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not describe timeout failure behavior, but the timeout parameter is already documented in the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: condition types, usage context, and a permission note. No redundant or filler content.

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 6 parameters are fully described in the schema and the tool is a straightforward blocking wait, the description covers the main use cases and safety profile. It lacks an explicit statement about timeout outcomes or return behavior, but this is not critical given the schema documents the timeout parameter and no output schema is expected.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the condition enum and their pairings (selector with selector/state, url with url_pattern, sleep with ms), but those details are already present in the schema's condition property description, adding no new semantic value.

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?

Description uses specific verb '按条件等待' (wait by condition) and explicitly enumerates the five supported conditions (load, networkidle, selector, url, sleep), clearly distinguishing it from sibling navigation tools like web_open or web_click.

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?

States it is suitable for slow page rendering or synchronizing after navigation, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently clear.

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