wait_for_selector

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It only states it returns True when found, but does not disclose behavior on timeout (false, exception, etc.), whether it blocks, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict outcomes.

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?

Extremely concise and direct. Every word contributes. It is a two-sentence description with no fluff, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple but the description omits critical behavior (timeout handling, return value semantics, error conditions). Without annotations or an output schema, the description should explain what happens when the element does not appear. It falls short of being complete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the selector format (CSS vs XPath) or that timeout_ms is in millisecondscould be inferred, but not stated. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 waits for an element to appear and returns a boolean. It distinguishes from siblings like click or get_text by being the only wait operation. However, it could be more specific about selector type or context, but it's adequate.

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 typical use cases like waiting before interacting with dynamic content, nor does it indicate exclusions or prioritize over other wait mechanisms. The description is purely functional, not contextual.

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