wait_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states high-level behavior (appear/disappear) but omits critical details like timeout behavior, return values, the 'gone' flag, or what happens if the condition is not met.

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 concise sentence, but it is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, it lacks the detail needed to be effective, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 complexity (7 parameters), absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, timeout semantics, the 'gone' flag, or any usage context, leaving agents with insufficient information to call 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 explain any of the 7 parameters. With only 43% schema description coverage, it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (e.g., selector, gone, timeoutMs, textContains), leaving agents with no semantic guidance beyond the sparse schema.

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 action (wait) and the target (selector or text) along with the condition (appear/disappear). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, none of which perform waiting, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The usage is only implied by the description's purpose; no context or prerequisites are given.

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