neko_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the waiting function but fails to mention critical behaviors like timeout errors, what happens if the selector is not found, or whether it blocks the agent. The timeout parameter is documented in the schema but not explained in the description.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's two modes. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description provides basic intention but lacks information about return values (e.g., whether it resolves with a boolean or void) and error handling. It is complete enough for a wait operation but could be more thorough.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter (state, timeout, selector, navigation). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as valid selector syntax or interaction between navigation and selector. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a CSS selector to reach a state or for navigation to complete. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like neko_click or neko_fill, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from neko_check.

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 implies usage scenarios (waiting for conditions) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like neko_check could potentially be used for similar state evaluation, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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