wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that condition-based waiting is unsupported and rejects requests, but does not describe timeout behavior, return values, or side effects beyond waiting.

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 focused sentences front-load the core action, immediately state the key restriction, and point to the alternative without redundancy.

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 wait tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and constraint. It lacks explicit timeout outcome details but is otherwise sufficient given schema richness.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage), including the condition constraint. The description reinforces the unsupported condition but adds little beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's action: waiting for a visible element matching a CSS selector. It also distinguishes itself from evaluate_script by stating JS conditions are not supported, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use it (for JavaScript conditions) and provides the alternative (evaluate_script), giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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