wait_for_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the blocking semantics and the selector requirement. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether failure throws or returns, or how multiple matching elements are handled. This is a meaningful gap for a blocking operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb 'Block' and states both the main behavior and a concrete usage example. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes.

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 tool with five parameters, zero annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too minimal. It omits what each selector field does, how timeout behaves, and what happens if the element never appears. The output schema presumably covers return structure, but critical call-time behavior is missing.

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 compensate by explaining the parameter meanings. It only says 'selector field' without specifying which of text, index, resource_id, or text_contains act as selectors. Timeout is visible in the schema but its unit and failure behavior are not described. Property names hint at semantics, but the tool description adds almost no parameter value.

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 specific action: block execution until an element matching a selector appears. It also gives a concrete example (waiting for the next page after a tap). It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling find_element, so it loses a point on differentiation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 example 'after tapping a button, wait for the next page' gives a clear context for when to use this tool. It also instructs agents to provide at least one selector field. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like find_element, so the guidance is helpful but not fully explicit.

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