Wait For

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

The description portrays a passive polling/observational operation that checks state and returns, but the annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying possible mutation or destruction. The description discloses no destructive behavior, so it contradicts the annotations. Per the rubric, this is an annotation contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. The parenthetical example adds concrete value rather than filler, and the URL globbing note is useful. It is slightly dense but earns its length.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should fully explain how to invoke the tool. It covers common wait behaviors but omits the meaning of `page` and `location`, exact condition syntax, and success return behavior. The annotation contradiction also makes expected side effects unclear.

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 carries the full burden. It explains `condition` categoriescars, clarifies `value` substring/glob behavior, and mentions real timeouts, but leaves `page` and `location` undefined and does not enumerate accepted `condition` string values. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 waits for text appearance/disappearance, element states, URL matches, or JS predicates. It is specific about the resource and the kinds of conditions, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'monitor'.

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 directly states when to use the tool: whenever a wait for a condition is needed. It also adds useful context about immediate return when the condition already holds訪. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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