wait_for

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and indicates a read-only polling behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether it throws an error or returns a boolean, or if it immediately resolves if text is already present.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It is concise, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks information about the return value or behavior on timeout. Without an output schema, the agent needs to know the outcome of the wait operation, but this is not provided. The tool has only 2 parameters, but the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters ('text' as a list and 'timeout' with default behavior). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the action (wait) and target (text appearing on page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'click' or 'fill' by being a wait operation. However, it does not specify whether it waits for any of the texts or all, leading to slight ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as polling manually or using other wait mechanisms. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where waiting is appropriate.

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