chrome_wait_for

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

Without annotations, the description covers basic behavior: it waits for a selector to exist and be visible, returning success or error. However, it omits details like whether it scrolls to element, what 'visible' means (e.g., in viewport), or specific timeout 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 well-structured with a clear first line, followed by an Args list and Returns. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 wait tool with 4 parameters and an existing output schema (as indicated), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return behavior. It lacks some nuance but is largely sufficient.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description explicitly explains the role of each parameter (session_id, selector, timeout_ms, poll_ms) beyond the schema's types and defaults. This adds meaningful usage context.

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 verb 'wait for' and the resource 'CSS selector', specifying existence and visibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chrome_click or chrome_extract which perform different actions.

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 for waiting on element presence before interaction, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it compared to alternatives. As the only wait tool among siblings, it scores a moderate 3.

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