chrome_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, timeouts, and failure behavior. It only states polling until a condition is met, without details on timeout, exceptions, or state changes. The truncation likely hides some content, but based on available text, transparency is low.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundancy. However, it is visibly truncated, leaving completeness questionable. As text stands, it is 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?

For a polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description needs to explain return behavior, timeout, and relation to other chrome tools. Available text covers only the basic trigger conditions, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The description directly names two parameters (selector, text_match) despite the schema having zero properties, providing useful semantics. However, details on formats, defaults, or combination logic are missing due to truncation. Baseline for a 0-param schema is 4, and the description adds value.

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 verb 'Polls' clearly indicates a waiting/polling action on the current Chrome tab, with two trigger conditions (selector or text_match). This distinguishes it from navigation, clicking, and other chrome tools, though the truncated description prevents full specification.

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?

Implies usage for waiting on page conditions, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like web_wait_for or chrome_read_tab. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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