session_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return result ('дождался'/'не дождался') and the session_start prerequisite, but it does not explain the underlying behavior: whether it blocks, how the timeout interacts, or what happens when both text and selector are absent. This is acceptable but thin.

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 short, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence contributes: what it waits for, what it returns, and the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters and no schema descriptions, so the description must clarify the operation. It covers the core wait-for behavior and return value, but leaves timeout semantics and the no-input case ambiguous. Given the output schema provides some structure, a mid-range score is fair.

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. It explains that text and selector are waited for, but it never mentions the timeout parameter, how the two conditions combine, or what empty defaults mean. The description adds only partial meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: wait on a live session page for text or a selector to appear, and returns one of two outcomes. It is clearly distinct from sibling session actions like session_click, session_text, or session_navigate.

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 description gives one prerequisite, 'Требует session_start', which is useful, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as directly reading page state or polling with session_text. Usage context is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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