wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it omits key traits: what happens on timeout, whether an error is thrown, polling/checking behavior, and whether timeoutMs represents a delay or a timeout limit. It names three modes but does not explain their semantics beyond surface level.

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 efficient sentence and is easy to parse. It front-loads the primary action, though it omits important detail; this is conciseness but also under-specification.

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 three undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine timeout behavior, parameter interaction, or whether calling with no arguments is valid. The described modes give some context but leave critical operational details unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'selector', 'text', and 'short delay', loosely mapping to the three properties, but it does not clarify units for timeoutMs, whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, or what happens when multiple are supplied. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clear action ('wait for') and identifies the resources: a selector becoming visible, text appearing, or a short delay. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by its synchronization purpose, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast behavior.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The description implies a synchronization use case but leaves the agent to infer context.

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