wb_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the timeout aspect but does not clarify what happens on timeout (e.g., error thrown, boolean returned, or null) nor whether the tool waits for all conditions simultaneously or any one of them. This leaves important behavioral details ambiguous.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose and key conditions. There is no redundancy or filler, every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors (wait conditions and timeout). The only gap is the lack of detail on timeout behavior and the somewhat ambiguous 'document is ready' phrase, but overall it is sufficient for this tool's simplicity.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond mentioning 'text', 'CSS selector', and 'timeout', which are already covered by the schema's parameter descriptions. Thus, the description does not add value beyond the 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('wait') and lists three concrete conditions (text appears, CSS selector matches, document is ready) along with a timeout. This distinguishes it from siblings like wb_navigate or wb_click, which perform different actions.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to wait for text, selector, or document readiness. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditions are self-explanatory and typical for synchronization, making the usage almost self-evident.

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