wait_for

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the page map is invalidated after the condition is met and instructs to call get_page_map for updated references. It also mentions case-sensitivity, max character length, and timeout behavior—details not present in the schema or annotations. This fully characterizes the tool's operational side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—usage mode, avoidance of polling, side-effect warning, and parameter semantics. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter details, and post-condition behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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%, yet the description provides comprehensive meanings for all three parameters: text (appearance, case-sensitive, max 500 chars), text_gone (disappearance, e.g., 'Loading...'), and timeout (default 10, max 30). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and exceeds the baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource construction ('Wait for text to appear or disappear on the page') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page_state and get_page_map. It precisely defines the two modes (appearance vs disappearance) and sets expectations for the operation.

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?

It explicitly advises avoiding repeated get_page_map calls, giving a clear when-to-use context. It also states the constraint 'Specify exactly one of text or text_gone', which is actionable usage guidance. This effectively differentiates the tool from alternatives and provides clear selection criteria.

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