Tap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the execution model (setTimeout alternative) and scope limitations (not for element waiting), though it doesn't mention rate limits or timeout bounds.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by comparative guidelines. Each sentence earns its place by either defining function or preventing misuse.

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?

For a single-parameter utility with no output schema and comprehensive annotations covering safety traits, the description is complete. It covers purpose, alternatives, and exclusions without needing to describe return values or complex state changes.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Milliseconds to wait' with default). Description mentions 'specified number of milliseconds' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantics regarding format, constraints, or usage patterns beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States specific action ('Wait') with clear resource ('specified number of milliseconds'). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'tap.eval with setTimeout' and element-specific waiting alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use instead of tap.eval with setTimeout') and when-not-to-use with preferred alternative ('For waiting on elements, prefer tap.waitFor(selector) instead'). Clear exclusion criteria prevents misuse.

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