wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose timeout resolutions, polling behavior, error conditions, or side effects. The schema mentions timeout_ms, but the description itself fails to communicate how the wait behaves.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise, though perhaps too concise to be fully informative. Still, it demonstrates good structure for a minimal statement.

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 that the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not explain when the wait completes, what the return value is, or how the different conditions interact. The schema helps with parameters, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 100%, so the parameters (selector, timeout_ms, network_idle, url_contains) are already well documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the generic 'condition', so the baseline score of 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 states the verb 'wait' and an outcome ('before proceeding'), giving a clear but generic sense of the tool's purpose. However, it says 'a condition' without specifying what kinds of conditions (DOM, network, URL), so it remains vague and relies on the schema to define actual use cases.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or how it fits with sibling tools like click_element or navigate. The phrase 'before proceeding' implies sequencing but is too indirect to serve as actionable usage guidance.

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