web_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it polls rather than sleeping and that it times out, which is useful behavioral information. However, it fails to mention what happens on timeout (error vs. silent return), what it returns, or how the element is identified given no parameters, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Waits'), clarifies the mechanism ('polls, not a fixed sleep'), and states the termination condition ('appears... or times out'). This is appropriately 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?

Despite the low complexity, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify how the target element is chosen (since there are no parameters), what the timeout duration is, what happens on timeout, or what the return value indicates. This ambiguity could prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't add parameter details, but it also doesn't need to for zero params. However, it mentions 'an element' without clarifying how that element is specified, which is a slight omission but doesn't reduce the score below baseline.

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 waits (polls) until an element appears or times out. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling wait tools like chrome_wait_for or safari_wait_for.

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 implies usage (wait for an element rather than a fixed sleep) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'polls, not a fixed sleep' hint gives some context, but it's not enough to guide tool selection among the many sibling wait tools.

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