wait

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a simple fixed wait for screen transitions/loadings and implies through the wait_for_text comparison that it waits the full duration rather than returning early. However, it does not explicitly disclose behavior like blocking, error handling, or what happens with invalid or zero seconds.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses only one additional sentence for the sibling comparison. It is not overly verbose, though the opening phrase 'Egyszeru varakozas' partially repeats the tool name and adds limited value.

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 one-parameter wait tool, the description covers its purpose and the most relevant alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The main missing piece is a more explicit statement about the parameter's exact semantics, but the overall context is sufficient for such a low-complexity tool.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'seconds' parameter beyond the schema's type and title. It doesn't explain units, allowed range, or exactly how the timer behaves. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 states a clear purpose: simple waiting for screen transitions and loading states. It also differentiates itself from wait_for_text by noting that wait_for_text is more efficient for specific text appearance. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from other similar siblings like wait_for_element or wait_until_screen_changes.

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 explicitly gives a when-to-use alternative: if waiting for a specific text, use wait_for_text because it avoids unnecessary waiting. It implies this tool is for screen transitions/loadings, but it does not cover all sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond the wait_for_text case.

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