wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool waits, but does not disclose what happens on timeout (error vs. silent continuation), whether it blocks other interactions, what it returns, or how the snapshot parameter alters the result. These are significant omissions for a wait primitive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It communicates the two possible behaviors efficiently without repetition or filler.

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 tool with zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify behavior when called with no arguments, the default timeout, what happens on failure, and what the snapshot option returns. It omits all of this, leaving the agent to infer core behavior.

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 67% (text has no description, seconds and snapshot do). The description adds meaning to 'text' and 'seconds' by framing them as the two wait modes, but it does not explain the snapshot parameter or add detail beyond the schema's own description for seconds. This is an adequate but incomplete mapping.

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 states a specific verb ('Wait') and two clear resources (text on the page, or a fixed time), so an agent immediately understands the tool's function. It does not name or differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling overlaps with waiting, so the lack of explicit differentiation is less critical.

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 explains the two waiting modes but gives no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or guidance on choosing between text-based and fixed-time waiting. There are no explicit alternatives mentioned, and no conditions such as 'use before interacting with dynamically loaded content' are provided.

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