camofox_wait_for_text

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool waits for text to appear but omits details like polling interval, scrolling behavior, or timeout error handling. The inclusion of a timeout parameter hints at failure behavior but is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by relevant use cases. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the basic purpose and use cases but lacks details on behavioral aspects (polling, timeout behavior, error handling). Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is moderately complete but could be more explicit about behavior.

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 the description adds value by contextualizing the 'text' parameter as waiting for appearance. However, no additional explanation is given for 'tabId' or 'timeout' beyond the schema, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 specific text') and resource ('on the page'), with explicit use cases. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like camofox_wait_for_selector by focusing on text content.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (search results, form submissions, dynamic content). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., wait_for_selector) for comparison.

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