web_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions polling and timeout but fails to explain how the JavaScript condition is specified (since input schema is empty) or what the timeout duration is. This is a critical omission for usability.

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 and front-loaded, but it's too brief and omits essential details that would make it useful. Conciseness is not helpful at the expense of completeness.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should be comprehensive. It fails to specify how to define the condition, timeout behavior, or error handling, making it nearly unusable for an AI agent.

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 has zero parameters, so the description could compensate by explaining how the condition is set (e.g., via prior web_eval call). It does not, leaving the agent confused about how to invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly states it polls for a JavaScript condition to be truthy, distinguishing it from a fixed sleep. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'chrome_wait_for' or 'ui_wait_for_element' beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., chrome_wait_for, safari_wait_for) or prerequisites. The description only says it polls, no context about when it's appropriate.

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