Wait for element

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

The description adds the timeout behavior to the read-only annotations, but does not disclose what happens upon timeout (e.g., error vs. false return) or whether it polls at a fixed interval. The annotations already signal safe read-only behavior, but the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 wasted words. While it is minimal, it effectively communicates the core action and termination condition.

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 the tool's 15 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It covers the basic wait behavior but omits crucial context about selector semantics, polling behavior, and return values, making it incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 undocumented parameters, the description fails to explain how to specify the target element. It does not mention that selector fields like text, class, resourceId, etc., are used to identify the element, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the schema's bare type definitions.

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 'Wait until an element appears or timeout is reached' clearly identifies the tool as a wait/synchronization operation for UI elements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like findElement or assertElement by emphasizing the waiting behavior and timeout.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternative comparisons are provided. The description implies a synchronization use case but does not state when to prefer this over findElement or assertElement. This makes the usage guidelines only implicitly communicated.

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