Wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a real trait: a hard 30-second cap and the reason (a longer wait is a held HTTP request that would fail, not return). It stops short of describing what the call returns or whether it blocking-polls, but the cap rationale is genuinely beyond the structured data.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and its use case, and the cap rationale packed into the second. No filler.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain what a wait returns (e.g., whether it surfaces refreshed desktop state). The context parameter hints at this, but the description itself leaves the return side of the contract unstated for a tool whose whole point is observing change.

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 67%, with the rich 'context' description living in the schema itself. The description only reinforces the seconds maximum ('Capped at 30 seconds'); it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already carries, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (pause) and the scenarios that motivate it (page still painting, application still starting), which is clear enough for an agent to recognize. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other wait-family siblings such as wait_for_computer, wait_for_operation, or wait_for_event.

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?

It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool ('for a page that is still painting or an application that is still starting'). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, which matters here given the crowded wait_* sibling set.

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