safari_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it stops at the core behavior. It does not disclose what happens on timeout (throw vs. return), whether presence in the DOM suffices or visibility is required, or what the tool returns on success/failure — all material for a wait 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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately economical for this operation, though so terse that it forgoes the behavioral context covered under other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain outcomes but does not: the agent cannot know what a successful wait returns, what timeout failure looks like, or which parameters are acceptable alone. For a tool with 4 documented parameters, this one-liner is under-specified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents text, receipt, timeout, and selector. The description adds only mild connective meaning ('element or text to appear') and does not clarify whether selector and text are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Wait for ... to appear on the page') and names both wait modes (element via selector, text). It is clear on its face, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling safari_wait or safari_wait_for_new_tab, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With a sibling literally named safari_wait, the agent gets no help deciding which waiting tool fits the task.

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