safari_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that it polls the current tab and checks for two conditions, but does not mention timeout behavior, polling interval, failure handling, or whether it modifies the page. The truncation also cuts off potentially important details, leaving a wait-for operation poorly characterized.

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, which is concise. However, it is truncated mid-clause, making it structurally incomplete. It fails to deliver a complete thought, which is a structural flaw that prevents a higher score.

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?

This is a wait-for tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema. The description should compensate by explaining return values, timeout behavior, and side effects, but it only explains the polling condition. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like chrome_wait_for or web_wait_for, leaving the context incomplete.

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 input schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'selector' and 'text_match', which appear to be conceptual parameters, but they are not reflected in the schema, creating an inconsistency. This adds some value over the empty schema but is incomplete and ambiguous due to truncation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Polls' and identifies the resource 'current Safari tab' and the condition for completion (CSS selector or text_match appears). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like chrome_wait_for and web_wait_for by naming Safari. However, the description is truncated, cutting off the end of the sentence, which slightly reduces clarity but the core purpose remains discernible.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when waiting for an element in Safari, but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no 'use this instead of...' guidance, which is a clear gap for a tool with many siblings.

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