webview_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. It adds transparency by detailing the waiting behaviors (selector strategies, IPC events, timeout) and the targeting logic (only connected app, default app). No destructive side effects implied. Slight gap: no mention of timeout behavior on failure.

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 six sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, strategy details, prerequisites, targeting, appIdentifier clarification, and alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and no sentence is redundant. Efficiently covers important aspects without excess.

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 lack of output schema, the description does not explain return values, but for a wait tool the return is likely straightforward (success/failure). It covers major operational details (strategies, targeting, prerequisites). Missing explicit mention of timeout behavior (e.g., throws on timeout). Still, it is nearly complete for a read-only tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'When type is selector, supports CSS (default), XPath, and text strategies' and explains appIdentifier targeting. However, it largely reiterates schema descriptions without adding significant new meaning beyond clarifying defaults and strategies.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Wait for elements, text, or IPC events in a Tauri app.' It explicitly states the app scope ('Tauri Apps Only') and distinguishes from browser waits by directing to Chrome DevTools MCP. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for waiting in Tauri apps, and when not to: for browser waits, refer to 'Chrome DevTools MCP'. It also explains prerequisites (requires active driver_session) and targeting (default app or specify appIdentifier).

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