camofox_wait_for_selector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions auth requirement (CAMOFO_API_KEY) and the waiting mechanism, but does not describe what happens on timeout or if the element is not found, nor the return value behavior.

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?

Concise at three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third adds auth requirement. No redundant information.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use context, and a requirement. It could mention return value or timeout behavior for full completeness, but the core is well-covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the parameters (tabId, selector, timeout) without additional context or constraints.

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 CSS selector in the live DOM, differentiating it from sibling tools like camofox_wait_for (generic) and camofox_wait_for_text (text-specific) by focusing on CSS selector and async SPA hydration scenarios.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (SPA hydration, async content) and preferences (use snapshot refs after found). It could be improved by explicitly naming alternative tools or conditions to avoid, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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