wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description should reveal more behavioral details. It only states the waiting condition but omits what happens on timeout, whether it throws an error, or what the output schema returns.

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 with no wasted words. It could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., listing parameters) to improve scannability.

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 presence of an output schema and three parameters with zero annotation coverage, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, default behavior, or how it differs from similar sibling 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no semantic value beyond parameter names. It does not explain how 'selector' and 'text' interact (e.g., both required? either one?) or the timeout parameter's unit or behavior.

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 waits for a selector to exist or text to appear, distinguishing it from other wait tools like wait_for_navigation (which waits for navigation). However, it could be more precise about the relationship between selector and text when both are provided.

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings such as wait_for_navigation, wait_for_network_idle, or click_and_wait. Agents lack context for decision-making.

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