camofox_wait_for_selector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the waiting behavior and the API key requirement, but does not mention what happens on timeout or whether it returns a value or throws an exception.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds meaningful information: the main action, when to use it, and the authentication caveat.

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 relatively simple wait-for-selector tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, usage, and an edge case (snapshot refs). However, it doesn't describe the return value or error behavior, which would make it fully complete given no output schema.

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 parameters (tabId, selector, timeout) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a CSS selector to appear') and the target resource ('live DOM'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like camofox_wait_for_text by focusing on CSS selectors.

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 usage context ('for SPA hydration and async content when snapshot refs are incomplete or stale') and guidance to prefer snapshot refs once found. Also notes the conditional API key requirement.

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