cloak_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the intent to wait but does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether it blocks, what it returns, or how conflicts (both selector and text provided) are resolved. The timeout parameter is documented in the schema, but behavioral details are missing.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It achieves maximum conciseness while conveying the essential 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?

The tool is relatively simple with low complexity, and the schema covers all parameters. However, the description does not provide complete context: it omits details about return behavior, error handling, or the logical operator between selector and text. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more context would be helpful for an agent to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely paraphrases the parameter concepts. No extra context or usage hints for the parameters are given.

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 resource ('element or text to appear'), distinguishing it from other tools in the sibling list that perform different actions like clicking or navigating. However, it could be more precise by specifying that it waits for visibility or presence, and by clarifying the relationship between selector and text.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prior conditions (e.g., page already loaded), nor any comparison to similar tools like cloak_click or cloak_navigate. The agent receives no context on appropriate use cases.

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