wait_for_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mechanism: wait until a change, return as soon as something happened, or report that nothing did. It does not mention timeout or polling details explicitly, but those are partially covered by defaults and the settle_ms schema description.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and return value, the second gives a useful behavioral contrast. Every phrase earns its place with no 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?

For a simple tool with optional params and no output schema, the description explains the trigger (page change), the observed signals (url, title, DOM size, text), and both return outcomes (something changed / nothing did). It skips explicit polling and timeout details, but the schema defaults and settle_ms description fill most of the remaining gap.

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 33% (only settle_ms has a description), and the tool description does not mention poll_ms or timeout at all. The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving two parameters without meaningful guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (wait until), a resource (the page), and the exact reported signals (url / title / DOM size / text). The 'honest version of a fixed sleep' line separates it from generic waits, making its unique role among siblings clear without naming them.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use context: after a click, when you need to wait for an actual change. It contrasts itself with a fixed sleep, telling the agent what not to do, though it does not name sibling wait tools or give exclusion criteria.

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