wait_for

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It names three wait modes but omits timeout behavior, what happens on timeout failure, whether it blocks or polls, and what the call yields despite there being no output schema to fall back on.

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 compact sentence with the central concept ('Wait for') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 an automation primitive with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should cover failure modes, timing semantics, and the return value. None of those are present, so an agent cannot predict what a successful or failed wait looks like.

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 schema declares zero parameters, which normally earns a baseline 4, but the description explicitly references inputs ('text', 'an element', page-quiet condition) that the empty object schema cannot accept. That mismatch leaves the agent unsure how to express the wait target, so it lands below the zero-param baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('wait for') and three distinct conditions it can await: text/element appearing, going away, or the page going quiet. That is concrete enough for an agent to know the tool's job, but it never distinguishes itself from workflow siblings like snapshot or page_report that could also be used to observe page state.

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 context (awaiting asynchronous UI changes) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. There is no guidance on whether to prefer this over snapshot, read_text, or measure_gap when confirming page state, all of which appear in the sibling list.

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