wait_for_condition

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: it polls, returns the last status snapshot on timeout, and does not throw. It also defines condition semantics (element_hidden matches invisible or non-existent, text_present searches iframe or all frames). This goes beyond simple safety hints and adds meaningful 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 dense but well-structured: a purpose statement, a colon-separated list of conditions with parameter meanings, and a practical example. Every clause adds value, with no fluff. The front-loaded purpose and clear list make it highly scannable despite the length.

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 (5 condition types, 7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers critical aspects: use case, condition semantics, timeout behavior, and return value. It does not explain edge cases like invalid conditions or the exact contents of the status snapshot, but the output schema likely handles return structure. Overall it is quite complete for a wait utility.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains the meaning of most parameters. It details condition values and how they interact with selector, expected_text, exact, and timeout_ms. It also implies iframe_selector via 'target iframe' and uses example syntax. However, it omits poll_interval_ms and does not specify the structure of the returned status snapshot, so it is not fully complete.

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 function: 'wait for condition to be true (polling)'. It enumerates all supported condition types (element_visible, element_hidden, element_has_text, text_present, url_contains), making the scope explicit. The verb+resource is specific, and the list distinguishes it from sibling automation tools like click_interact or fill_input.

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 a concrete typical use case: 'after submitting a form, wait_for_condition(condition='text_present', expected_text='新增成功', ...)' and explains that you should wait for the success message before assertion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the example conveys clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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