wait_for

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not deliver. It never states what happens on timeout (error, rejection, empty result), whether the call blocks or polls, or what it returns on success. 'Wait' implies blocking semantics but the failure mode — the most important trait for a wait tool — is undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the core action leads. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight 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?

For a wait/sync tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essential behavioral contract: timeout handling, return value, and blocking behavior. The single sentence is not sufficient to call this tool correctly under race conditions.

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 67%: 'text' (with its any-value semantics) and 'pageId' are documented in the schema, but 'timeout' has no description anywhere, leaving units and defaults unknown. The description itself adds nothing beyond restating 'specified text' and 'selected page', so the schema does most of the work — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Wait for the specified text to appear on the selected page.' An agent immediately knows this is a synchronization primitive. No sibling in the list duplicates this behavior, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description stops short of the 5 mark by not clarifying what distinguishes the wait from simply snapshotting.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. For a browser agent this matters (e.g., poll until text vs. take_snapshot and inspect), yet the description offers nothing about sequencing or prerequisites. Implied usage only, with no exclusions.

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