wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies synchronous blocking for the specified duration, which is the core behavior. However, it doesn't disclose that the tool may be blocking, has no side effects, or disallows negative durations.

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?

A single sentence with 10 words is highly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary to convey the core functionality with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could mention that the wait is blocking and that the tool returns after the duration, but for a trivial 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specified number of seconds,' which ties to the 'duration' parameter but adds no further detail (e.g., supports fractional seconds, precision limits). Baseline is low due to schema gap; the description provides minimal clarification.

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 a specified number of seconds, using a verb ('wait') and resource ('seconds'). It's unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which are all actions (click, type, etc.). However, it could improve by explicitly noting it's a pause in automation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context, such as recommending it for delaying between steps or avoiding during time-sensitive operations.

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