wait

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 does disclose the four wait modes, which is substantive, but it omits meaningful behaviors: what happens when the selector is not found or the timeout elapses (error vs. continue), whether selector waits for appearance or visibility, and what 'networkidle' actually waits for. These are real unknowns for a tool that controls execution flow.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It opens with the verb, immediately enumerates all four wait targets, and communicates the purpose in one pass — an agent can grasp the full scope at a glance.

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?

The tool is simple with zero required parameters, and the schema defaults (type='timeout', timeout=30000) plus the description's type list cover basic invocation. However, the per-type parameter interplay, default behavior when only 'type' is supplied, and failure/error semantics are left unstated, which matters for a tool whose purpose is controlling the flow of a browsing session.

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 only 33% — only 'value' is documented in the schema, while 'type' and 'timeout' lack descriptions. The tool description adds value by enumerating the wait types and clarifying that the timeout value is in milliseconds, but it does not explain which parameters are required per type or how the 'value' field relates to the numeric 'timeout' parameter beyond the phrase 'timeout value in ms.'

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 verb ('wait for') and a clear resource scope: 'a selector, navigation event, networkidle state, or a fixed timeout before continuing.' These four wait targets map exactly to the schema enum, and no sibling tool performs a wait-like operation, so it is easily distinguished from navigate, click, and get_content without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'before continuing' implies a synchronization use case between page interactions, which gives some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use explanation, no conditions for choosing one wait type over another, and no named alternatives — though no sibling provides a comparable wait capability, so the exclusion guidance is largely unnecessary.

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