wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the wait-for-disappearance behavior and timeout semantics are implied by the params. It doesn't disclose what happens on timeout (throws? returns false?), default timeout behavior, or whether this is a blocking call vs. polling, leaving some ambiguity.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a representative example. It's efficient with 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?

The tool is relatively simple (wait for appear/disappear), but the description doesn't address the ambiguous dual-timeout params, default timeout behavior, or failure semantics. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could reasonably add a note about what happens on timeout or how the tool differs from wait_for_animation.

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%, and both 'gone' and 'target' have descriptive schema text. The description adds context for 'gone' (loading spinners use case). However, there are two timeout parameters (timeout and timeout_ms) whose distinction is unclear even from the schema, and the description doesn't clarify which to use or the default.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Waits for a widget to appear or disappear') and explains the 'gone' flag for disappearance with a specific example (loading spinners). It's clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wait_for_animation tool, which could cause ambiguity.

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 gives a concrete example ('e.g. loading spinners') for when to use 'gone=true,' which implies usage context for disappearance scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. wait_for_animation or vs. other interaction tools, nor any exclusions.

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