wait_for_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'wait for ... load state'. It does not mention whether the tool blocks until the condition succeeds, what happens on timeout, whether it throws or returns a status, or how the 'until' values affect behavior.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It could be slightly more informative, but for the core purpose statement, it is appropriately sized and easily scannable.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, plus two parameters with meaningful enums, the description is under-specified. It omits timeout failure behavior, the meaning of the different load-state conditions, and when to prefer this tool over sibling wait-related tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no information about 'until' or 'timeout_ms'. The enum values like 'commit', 'domcontentloaded', and 'networkidle' are not explained, and the description gives no guidance on choosing among them or understanding timeout behavior.

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 a specific action ('wait') applied to a specific resource ('the page ... load state'), which is more concrete than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'wait_for', relying mostly on the name and the generic phrase 'load state' to convey its narrower purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wait_for', 'wait_for_captcha', or 'navigate'. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context, such as waiting after navigation or before interacting with the page.

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