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 traits. It notes that an API key is required, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or its effect on the page state. It also does not describe timeout behavior (e.g., what happens on timeout) or any rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the primary action, the second provides usage context, and the third gives a follow-up recommendation. The requirement for CAMOFOX_API_KEY is noted concisely.

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 and full schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it fails to describe the return value (e.g., success indicator or element reference) and what happens on timeout or error, which is important for an agent to handle the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions 'CSS selector' and 'SPA hydration' context but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the timeout parameter's behavior in detail.

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 identifies the tool's action ('wait for a CSS selector to appear') and the target resource ('live DOM'). It also provides a specific use case ('SPA hydration and async content') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like camofox_wait_for_text or camofox_query_selector.

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 this tool ('when snapshot refs are incomplete or stale') and gives post-use guidance ('prefer snapshot refs for interaction when available'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative approaches (e.g., using camofox_query_selector directly).

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