wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool waits for certain conditions but does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., throws or resolves false), whether it polls or uses events, or how detachment/hidden states are interpreted. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It covers both primary use cases (element states and URL navigation) efficiently, earning its place with zero waste.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the core purpose and does not explain return values, timeout behavior, or edge cases like what happens when both selector and url are provided. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it reliably.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (url, state, timeout, selector), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Wait') with a defined resource ('an element to appear/disappear or for navigation to a URL'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like navigate (which performs navigation) and get_element (which retrieves an element) by focusing on waiting for a condition rather than performing or reading directly.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to wait for an element to change visibility/attachment or for a URL to be reached. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'instead of using sleep' or 'not for polling DOM mutations.' The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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