wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations don't convey: the wait can be inverted with gone=true to wait for disappearance, and it is intended as a post-action synchronization primitive. It doesn't state what happens on timeout expiry, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core behavior and the find reference before the usage cue. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description arguably should say what a successful wait yields (e.g., the matched element) and what timeout expiry means. It adequately covers the matching semantics and usage moment for a 4-param read-only tool whose annotations carry the safety story.

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 coverage is only 50% (find and gone are undocumented in the schema), but the description compensates by defining find as a role-or-label matcher and gone as the disappearance switch. app and timeout are already explained in the schema, so no further detail is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('wait until') plus the resource and matching semantics ('element matching find (role or label)'), and even names the sibling inspect as the syntax reference for find. An agent can distinguish this from click_element or inspect without reading any schema.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: 'Use after actions that open dialogs, load pages, or show spinners.' It says when to reach for this tool but names no alternative or exclusion (e.g., when not to wait, vs. polling with inspect).

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