wait_for_selector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting behavior but lacks critical details: whether it blocks execution, what happens on timeout (error or return), if it polls continuously, or any side effects. For a wait operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (interactive waiting with timeout), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like blocking nature, timeout handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (tabId, selector, timeout) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as selector format examples or timeout implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '지정된 셀렉터가 DOM에 나타날 때까지 대기합니다' (waits until a specified selector appears in the DOM). It specifies the verb (wait) and resource (selector in DOM), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content' or 'evaluate' which might also involve DOM interaction. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a launched browser/tab), when-not scenarios (e.g., avoid if selector already exists), or explicit alternatives among siblings. Usage is implied from context but not stated.

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