Wait for Element

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the tool waits for an element appearance. It does not mention what happens on timeout or other edge cases, but the annotations suffice for safety disclosure.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more detailed about behavior without losing conciseness, such as mentioning the default timeout or return value, which are covered elsewhere.

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 the presence of many sibling tools and the existence of an output schema, the description does not fully help an agent select this tool. It lacks information about when to prefer this over other waiting or element tools. Behavioral details like timeout behavior and return value are not described, though annotations and schema partially compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a brief note about selector types ('Bare selectors are treated as CSS; use text:... for text matching'), which partially overlaps with the schema's description. It does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Wait for an element to appear') and the target ('the page'). It specifies how selectors are interpreted (CSS by default, text: prefix for text matching), which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'wait_for_url' or 'wait_time', which slightly reduces the distinctiveness.

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 provides guidance on selector syntax (CSS vs text: prefix), which helps in proper usage. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., when to wait for an element vs a URL or a fixed time). The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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