style_wait

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral details. It discloses that by default it returns at most 3 results and suggests css preference, but it omits critical behavior such as timeout/error handling (despite timeoutMs/intervalMs params), what happens if no element appears, and the exact return format. This is insufficient for a wait 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, but the brevity leaves out important details, making it slightly under-specified rather than ideally concise.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for a complex wait tool. It does not explain timeout semantics, how multiple selectors interact, what the returned items represent, or the tab-filtering behavior. The tool appears sophisticated, yet the description covers only a small fraction of its functionality.

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 coverage is only 40%, leaving 6 parameters (css, role, text, testId, timeoutMs, intervalMs) without schema descriptions. The description adds semantics by naming css/text/testId/role as selector types, but does not compensate for the timing parameters or clarify how index, urlIncludes, and titleIncludes relate to tab selection. It provides only partial 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 lists supported selector types (css/text/testId/role). The verb '等待' (wait) and resource '元素' (element) clearly identify the action, and the selector list helps distinguish it from immediate-find tools like style_find, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 guidance to '优先用 css' (prefer using css) is a usage tip, and the phrase '等待元素出现' implies this is for waiting when elements may not be immediately present. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor provide exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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