wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals that it does not navigate or click, and that it handles client-side loading delays. However, it omits what happens on timeout or when both selector and idle are specified, which is a notable gap for a blocking operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and conditions, then a targeted usage scenario. No fluff or 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 is simple, but the lack of annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions mean the description must compensate. It explains the main purpose and a usage scenario, but omits parameter semantics for idle/timeout and error behavior on timeout, leaving the description incomplete for full invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only explains 'selector' implicitly via the main sentence. 'idle' and 'timeout_ms' are not described, leaving their meaning (especially the boolean 'idle' and its interaction with 'selector') unclear.

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 function: waiting for a selector to appear and/or network activity to go idle, with explicit exclusion of navigating or clicking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like navigate, click, and get_page_content.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'if a previous get_page_content/get_list read caught the page before client-side content finished loading.' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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