human_wait

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 discloses that the delay is random ('human-ish') and bounded by minMs/maxMs, and that it is intended for settling. It doesn't mention blocking behavior or side effects, but for a simple sleep tool, this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence of 8 words that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Sleep'. Every word contributes meaning; no wasted text. Exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.

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 is simple (no output schema, two optional params, no annotations), the description provides enough context: purpose, behavior (random delay), and usage scenario. It could explicitly state that the delay is uniformly random between min and max, but the current wording is still clear enough.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—'random delay' is already implied by the parameter names and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 sleeps a random delay ('human-ish') and explains its purpose of letting navigation/challenges settle. It distinguishes from siblings like 'challenge_wait' by implying timing after actions, but could be more explicit about the difference. The verb 'sleep' and resource 'delay' are clear.

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 mentions the delay is for navigation/challenges to settle, providing some context for when to use it, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'browser_wait_for' or 'challenge_wait' are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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