wait_for_navigation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Wait for page navigation to complete' implies this is a blocking operation that may timeout, but it doesn't specify what happens on success/failure, whether it returns any data, or what the default timeout is. The description mentions the core behavior but lacks important operational details.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a waiting tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a navigation waiting tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'navigation completion', what happens on timeout, whether it returns success/failure status, or how it interacts with the sibling 'wait_for' tool. The single sentence leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With 75% schema description coverage (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap (pageId has no schema description), nor does it provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 action ('wait for page navigation to complete'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'wait_for' tool, which appears to be a more general waiting mechanism. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus the general 'wait_for' sibling, nor any context about prerequisites like requiring an active navigation to be in progress. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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