wavexis_wait

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns elapsed time, but does not explain blocking behavior or polling details. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and includes args and returns. However, it could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and not verbose.

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 tool's complexity (multiple strategies, selector patterns, timeout range), the description lacks detail on how to choose strategies or use url_pattern. The output schema is present, so returns are partially covered, but overall completeness is low.

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 compensate. It only lists parameter names (strategy, selector, timeout) without explaining their meanings or usage, and misses session_id and url_pattern. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 a specific condition on the page, which is a distinct action among siblings. It mentions key parameters (strategy, selector, timeout) and the return type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wavexis_check or wavexis_navigate. The description does not include any when/when-not scenarios or preconditions.

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