page_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the condition semantics but omits important runtime behaviors such as timeout throwing, polling behavior, or side effects. The timeout parameter description in the schema mentions timeout errors, but the tool description itself does not.

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 concise sentence, highly efficient and front-loaded. It captures the core behavior in a compact form without 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to mention timeout behavior, error conditions, or when to use it, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to invoke and rely on the tool.

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 schema already provides descriptions for timeout and condition, and the tool description essentially repeats the condition semantics without adding new information. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value and does not clarify the page_id parameter, though its purpose is fairly obvious.

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 waits for a condition and specifies two condition types (number = milliseconds, string = element selector). It is unambiguous and uses a specific verb (wait) with a resource (condition). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but no other wait tool exists, so this is acceptable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning typical use cases, prerequisites, or when other page/element tools might be more appropriate.

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