fx_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does usefully disclose the default 10s timeout and 30s maximum. However, it doesn't say what happens when the wait times out, whether the tool polls, or how text matching works. For a presumably non-destructive wait operation, this is a moderate gap rather than a contradiction.

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 entire definition is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and condition, then adds timeout defaults. Every phrase carries useful information with no filler.

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 a simple wait tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core wait condition and timeout behavior, making it minimally usable. It is incomplete in important operational details: timeout outcome, parameter precedence, and matching semantics. Given the three optional parameters, a bit more detail would be needed for a 4.

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 does connect text to 'visible text', selector to 'CSS selector exists', and timeout_ms to the default and max duration, which is meaningful. But it omits details such as precedence when both text and selector are supplied, whether text is exact or substring, and the valid timeout_ms range.

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 a specific operation: wait until visible text appears or a CSS selector exists. This clearly distinguishes it from navigation, clicking, and typing siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The timeout default and maximum add further clarity about the tool's scope.

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 the tool is for synchronization before interacting with the page, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives like fx_status or fx_snapshot. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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