wait_for

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

Without annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It explains waiting and return values, but omits details like timeout handling, failure conditions, or that it blocks execution. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: describing the core action and providing usage advice. No unnecessary words.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage, and return values. It lacks details about default timeout or interplay between 'visible' and 'selector', but overall it is sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of return values is not parameter-specific.

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 for an element') and resource ('in the DOM'), and specifies the return values (tag name and text content). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_element' by emphasizing the dynamic waiting 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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool 'before interacting with dynamic content', giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving some room for improvement.

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