wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it waits for an element to appear, but omits critical details like timeout behavior, what happens if the element never appears, or if the element is already present. No mention of whether it polls or uses events.

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 short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but every sentence must earn its place; here, there is only one sentence that does not fully justify its brevity.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (an output schema exists but is not described). Without usage guidance, behavioral details, or parameter explanations, the agent lacks sufficient context to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what format selector expects (CSS/XPath) or that timeout is in milliseconds. The default timeout value of 10000 is not explained.

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 waits for an element to appear, which distinguishes it from other wait tools like wait_for_download, wait_for_response, wait_for_url, and wait_for_hidden. The verb 'wait' and resource 'element' are specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_hidden, wait_for_download, etc. The agent receives no context about scenarios, preconditions, or exclusions.

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