wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this drives the user's real browser via the OctoLimb extension, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about blocking vs non-blocking behavior, side effects, or what a call returns.

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?

Short and mostly front-loaded, with the critical 'do NOT use' warning present. The bracketed browser preamble comes first, which delays the actual action, and the 'default 3' claim duplicates the schema.

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 zero-required-parameter wait tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: what it does, when it is permitted, and the environment it operates in. Only the blocking/return behavior is left unspecified.

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 both 'intent' and 'seconds' are already documented. The description's 'default 3' simply restates the schema default and adds no new syntax or constraint information.

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?

States a specific action ('Wait for x seconds, default 3') and frames it in the real-Chrome/OctoLimb browser context. No sibling tool in the list performs waiting, so the operation is unambiguously distinguishable.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('do NOT use this action unless user asks to wait explicitly') plus a context condition ('use only when the task requires acting on a real website'). That is precisely the when/when-not guidance agents need, and it is rare to see it stated so directly.

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