CloakMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool waits for specific conditions (DOM mutations cease, network idle), has a timeout mechanism, and returns status information (whether settled and mutation count). It doesn't mention error handling or performance impacts, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidelines, third explains return values, and the Args section clearly documents parameters. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (waiting for page stability), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns whether...'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return behavior without needing to detail output structure.

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 fully explains both parameters: page_id ('Target page ID') and timeout_ms ('Max wait time in milliseconds (default: 5000)'), adding crucial semantic context beyond the schema's basic types and titles.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Wait for the page to settle') and defines the settling criteria ('no DOM mutations + network idle'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cloak_navigate or cloak_click by focusing on post-action waiting rather than navigation or interaction.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after actions that trigger dynamic content loading.' This provides clear context for application, distinguishing it from tools like cloak_read_page (for reading content) or cloak_screenshot (for capturing visuals).

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