wait_until_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the waiting condition but does not explain what happens on timeout, whether it polls or blocks, if it returns a value, or how quiet_ms influences behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse, though it omits important context that would improve its informativeness.

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 no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, timeout behavior, or relationships to sibling tools, making it insufficient for reliable selection and 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?

The input schema defines timeout and quiet_ms with defaults but no descriptions. The tool description does not mention either parameter, leaving quiet_ms especially unclear. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but failed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Wait until' and clearly identifies the resources: 'DOM is ready' and 'pywebview API is available.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_idle, which targets a different condition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_idle or get_app_status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context are provided; the description only states what the tool does without explaining when it should be invoked.

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