wavexis_wait

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

Description discloses side effects: 'None — read-only polling with no page mutations; blocks the tool call up to the configured timeout.' This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing the blocking behavior and polling nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, followed by usage notes, side effects, and return format. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 (one required parameter, five optional with enums) and the presence of thorough schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, side effects, and return format. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description does not elaborate on individual parameters; however, the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (timeout, selector, strategy, url_pattern). Since schema coverage of descriptions is high, the description adds minimal value beyond restating the purpose and return format. Baseline 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 the verb 'block until' and the resource 'a page condition', listing specific conditions (load, selector, URL, network idle). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wavexis_navigate and wavexis_stop by providing context on when to use each.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after wavexis_navigate when the wait strategy was none' or 'for dynamic content'. Also provides an alternative: 'use wavexis_stop to cancel a load instead'. This gives clear guidance on usage versus alternatives.

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