cocos_wait_for_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs navigation, sleeping, and closing actions, but doesn't specify whether this opens/closes browser windows/tabs, what happens on timeout, if it requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two brief sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality and use case. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the key actions followed by the specific utility context.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and one parameter's role but doesn't explain the other parameters' purposes, what the tool returns, error conditions, or detailed behavioral expectations. The context signals indicate high complexity that the description doesn't adequately address.

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 for all 5 parameters. It only mentions 'sleep ``ms``' which corresponds to one parameter, leaving the other 4 parameters (url, viewport dimensions, timeout) completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names.

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 with specific verbs (navigate, sleep, close) and identifies its utility for letting async asset loading finish between build and screenshot operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on preview waiting rather than asset creation or scene manipulation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful between a build and a screenshot to let async asset loading finish'), giving a specific scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, leaving some guidance implicit.

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