wait_for_user

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

No annotations provided. Description says 'return instructions' but tool name 'wait_for_user' suggests blocking behavior. Missing disclosure on whether tool waits, how to proceed after user completes, or any timeout/status. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, very efficient. However, lacks structure for usage guidelines or behavioral details beyond the core purpose.

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 simple tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and examples. However, it fails to clarify the apparent discrepancy between name (wait) and description (return instructions), leaving behavioral completeness incomplete.

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 100% with a clear parameter description. Tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema alone is sufficient.

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 explicitly states the tool returns instructions for human to complete browser-only actions like login, CAPTCHA, consent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling automation tools (e.g., click_selector, fill_text) which perform actions directly.

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?

Description implies usage when browser-only actions are needed but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on distinguishing from related tools like detect_human_intervention.

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