wait_for

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

The description discloses basic behavior (wait until text appears or timeout) but lacks details on what happens on timeout (e.g., error vs. return value) or how 'appears' is defined (visible, present in DOM). With no annotations, more depth would be beneficial.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the essential action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple wait tool, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits behavioral details like whether the tool blocks until condition met or returns a result, and the output schema (though present) is not described, leaving some uncertainty.

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 description mentions both parameters (text and timeout_ms), which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify nuances like what 'text' matching entails (exact substring? case-sensitive?) or the unit of timeout_ms (milliseconds implied).

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 action: waiting until text appears on the page, with a timeout. It uses a specific verb ('wait for') and resource ('text on the page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'navigate'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a page already loaded, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'get_text' for reading text after a wait.

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