chrome_wait_for

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool polls and targets existing tabs, but omits what happens on timeout, whether it returns a result or just success, and how tab selection works when multiple selectors are given. These are significant gaps for a polling operation.

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 an efficient single sentence with zero filler and front-loads the core behavior (polling) before the conditions. It is easy to parse and immediately actionable.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important runtime context such as failure behavior, return value, and how timeout/interval defaults. It is minimally viable but not complete enough for an agent to anticipate edge cases.

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 high (86%), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds a little value by clarifying that kind=expression means truthiness evaluation, but it does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented target-matching params.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('existing Chrome tab'), and clearly defines the terminating condition — a selector existing or a JavaScript expression returning truthy. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_find and chrome_evaluate, which are about inspecting snapshots or evaluating expressions directly.

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 implies when to use the tool: you need to wait until a condition becomes true in an already-open tab. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or which sibling tools should be preferred for direct inspection versus waiting.

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