wait

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists wait kinds but does not explain behavior such as blocking nature, timeout handling, or side effects. The agent cannot infer important details like whether the tool waits until condition is met or for a fixed duration.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing critical details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, so it earns a 4.

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?

With 34 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, default behaviors, or how conditions work. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 68% (below 80%), so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. However, it adds no parameter information beyond the schema. The agent must rely on parameter names and schema descriptions, which are incomplete.

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 purpose: to wait for various conditions (duration, text, ref, selector, stable UI). The verb 'wait' is specific and the list of conditions gives a sense of what it does, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'is' or 'find'.

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 (e.g., when to wait versus find or is). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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