is

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 implies the check is synchronous ('Use wait when the condition may appear asynchronously') but does not disclose whether it returns a boolean, throws on no match, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is immediately scannable.

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 and 31 mostly-standard parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it clarifies purpose and async guidance. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state the return type or behavior on no match, which an agent would need for confident invocation.

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 high (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it lists predicate examples that match the schema enum, but does not elaborate on 'selector' format or edge cases. It neither heavily compensates nor detracts.

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's function with a specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('a selector satisfies a UI predicate'), listing example predicates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wait' by explicitly directing async cases to 'wait'.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use wait when the condition may appear asynchronously.' This provides a concrete alternative and context, though it doesn't exhaustively contrast with all sibling tools like 'find' or 'snapshot'.

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