babelwrap_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool waits for a condition, but it does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., error thrown) or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but lacks detail on error 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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first defines the action, the second gives usage context. No wasted words.

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 has 6 parameters (100% schema coverage) and an output schema exists (indicated), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main use case and conditions. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but the output schema likely covers that. For a wait tool, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it lists parameter types like text, selector, url_contains, but does not clarify nuances like matching rules. The description does not significantly add meaning over the 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 clearly states the tool waits for a condition on the page before proceeding, with a specific verb 'wait' and resource 'condition on page'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click, navigate, etc., by focusing solely on waiting. The examples (async loading, SPA navigation) further clarify its 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: after clicking a button that triggers async loading, SPA navigation, or any action requiring waiting for content. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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