page_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose how waiting is implemented (e.g., polling, blocking), what happens on timeout, or whether parameters like 'text' and 'textGone' are mutually exclusive. The behavior beyond the literal condition is unspecified.

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 short sentence, very concise with no redundancy. However, it may be too brief to convey necessary detail, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 wait modes, several parameters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits important details about behavior on timeout, parameter precedence, and the waiting lifecycle, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 value beyond the schema; it does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., can 'time' and 'text' be combined?) or provide additional meaning. It exactly mirrors the schema's information.

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's function: waiting for text to appear, disappear, or for a specified time. It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource, and it distinguishes from sibling action tools (e.g., click, navigate). However, it could be more explicit about operating on a page.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_verify_text_visible or page_navigate's implicit waits. It lacks context for when waiting is preferred or how it integrates with other page operations.

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