ghost_tab_wait_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool waits until a selector matches an element, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens when the selector never matches, whether the element must be visible, or whether the tool returns a result or fails. This is a significant gap for a wait operation.

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 that front-loads the core action and target. It avoids fluff, but it may be slightly too terse given the lack of annotations and the presence of several parameters that need explanation.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic waiting condition. It does not explain return values, failure modes, default timeout behavior, or how the tab and browser parameters relate. The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in varied situations.

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 for explaining parameters. It adds meaning for 'selector' by clarifying it is a CSS selector and for the general waiting behavior, but it does not explain the 'tab' identifier, the optional 'browser' parameter, or the unit/default behavior of 'timeout_ms'. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific action (wait) and resource (an element matching a CSS selector in the tab). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like ghost_wait by explicitly mentioning the tab and selector-based matching, though it does not strongly differentiate itself from all related tab tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghost_wait, ghost_tab_find, or ghost_assert. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool should be preferred or avoided.

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