element_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default and maximum timeout (15s/60s) and the states waited for, but omits details on failure behavior (e.g., timeout error), polling mechanism, or whether the tool is exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key parameters (state and timeout). No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only state and timeout, leaving locator, by, and tab_id unexplained. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must clarify parameters. It explains 'state' (enum values) and 'timeout' (default/max), but does not explain the critical 'locator' parameter, nor 'by' (locator strategy) or 'tab_id'. Two of five parameters remain undocumented.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'Wait' and the resource 'element', lists the four possible states (present, visible, hidden, deleted), and distinguishes this tool from sibling element tools like element_find or element_get_text which do not 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 implies the tool should be used when needing to wait for an element to reach a specific state, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as element_find (which might immediately check presence) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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