wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions polling and timeout_s but fails to disclose timeout behavior (error vs. return), what 'ready' means, or whether it modifies state. Agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 a single, terse sentence. While it front-loads the purpose, it is in Russian (potential language barrier) and lacks any structured breakdown. It is concise but at the expense of informativeness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior, default timeout semantics, and any detail on what constitutes 'readiness'. Agent cannot reliably invoke this tool.

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 0%. The description adds no explanation for parameters like 'mode', 'query', or 'target'. It only implicitly references timeout_s. Agent has no semantic guidance on how to use the parameters.

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 element appearance/readiness using polling. While the verb and resource are specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'find' which might also locate elements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find' or 'act'. The description does not state when not to use it or any preconditions.

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