cdp_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two operational modes but leaves ambiguity about whether the timeout applies when a selector is given, and it does not disclose behavior on timeout failure (e.g., error vs. return false).

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 sentence that is directly front-loaded with the main action. It is concise, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not cover all essential context: return values are not mentioned, timeout behavior with selector is ambiguous, and there is no annotation or output schema to fill gaps. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'selector' is a CSS selector and 'timeout' is in milliseconds, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clearly explain how timeout interacts with selector-based waiting, leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose: waiting for a CSS selector to appear or waiting a fixed timeout. This is a specific verb-plus-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cdp_wait_response, which likely waits for network responses.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to wait for an element to appear or when you need a fixed delay. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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