wait_for

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic wait-for-appear/disappear behavior, but does not describe what happens on timeout, whether it throws or returns a boolean, polling semantics, or how visible/hidden/attached/detached map to 'appear/disappear'.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of closely related wait_* siblings, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. Missing pieces include timeout failure behavior, return value, state semantics, and differentiation from similar wait tools.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no detail about the 'state' enum or 'timeout' semantics. It only hints at the text/selector split with 'element/text', while leaving state values, timeout units, and matching behavior unexplained.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Wait') and a specific resource ('element/text') plus the outcome ('appear or disappear'). This clearly differentiates it from navigation/network wait siblings like wait_for_navigation or wait_for_response.

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 given on when to use this tool versus wait_for_navigation, wait_for_any_of, wait_for_change, or wait_for_network_idle. The agent is left to infer context from the name and the sparse description, with no exclusion or alternative suggestions.

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