wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'with retry' but fails to explain timeout behavior, polling mechanics, or error handling, and 'Smart' is undefined. This leaves significant uncertainty about side effects and failure modes.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core behavior and an emoji for visibility. It is efficient but the word 'Smart' adds little value; still, every word earns its place for a brief description.

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 there are five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief to be contextually complete. It does not explain what happens on timeout, whether the tool returns a boolean or throws, or how retry logic is configured, which are critical for a wait operation.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'elements, text, or conditions' loosely maps to selector, text, and condition parameters, but it adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 elements, text, or conditions with retry, using a specific verb ('wait') and resource types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_verify_element_visible which verify rather than wait, though 'Smart' is somewhat vague.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention using browser_verify_element_visible for verification or mention scenarios where waiting is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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