camofox_wait_for

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses the specific conditions waited for (DOM, network idle, hydration). However, it does not mention timeout behavior, error handling, or whether the tool returns a success indication, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers purpose and usage but lacks details on return value, error behavior (e.g., timeout), and what 'fully ready' entails in edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaning by explaining the three waiting criteria (DOM, network, hydration), which enriches understanding of the timeout and waitForNetwork parameters beyond their schema definitions.

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 page to be fully ready (DOM loaded, network idle, framework hydration). It differentiates from sibling wait tools like camofox_wait_for_selector by targeting overall page readiness rather than specific elements or text.

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 says 'Use after navigation or actions that trigger page changes,' providing clear context. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the usage guidance is direct and sufficient for the intended scenario.

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