wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about blocking behavior, what happens when the timeout elapses (throw, return false, silent continue), or what the call returns. These are the critical traits for a wait primitive and all are absent.

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?

It is a single front-loaded phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undefined failure semantics, the description should at minimum explain timeout behavior and the return value. The fully documented schema helps the inputs, but the runtime contract is left entirely to inference.

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 100%, so selector, state (with enum and default), and timeout (with default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Wait' plus the resource 'element or condition' gives a general sense of the action, but 'condition' is never defined and no sibling is referenced (isVisible, snapshot, getText all overlap in intent). An agent can guess the purpose but cannot distinguish it cleanly from the other observation tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to wait versus polling with isVisible or snapshot, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance. The description offers nothing an agent can use to choose this tool over its siblings.

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