wait_for_element_present

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful details: default timeout of 7 seconds when 0 or None is passed, and exception-raising behavior on timeout. This covers the most important runtime behaviors, though it could further clarify polling behavior or that visibility is not required.

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. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by timeout semantics and failure behavior. Every sentence adds essential 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?

For a simple wait tool, the description covers purpose, timeout default, and failure mode. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing this tool over sibling wait/assert variants, though the 'present in DOM' phrasing partially addresses this.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the timeout parameter well, including the special 0/None default behavior. The selector parameter is only minimally described by its name, but 'element' in the description makes its role understandable.

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?

States a specific action: wait until the element is present in the DOM. The wording 'present in the DOM' distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_element_visible, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to wait for DOM presence—but does not explicitly guide selection among siblings such as wait_for_element_visible, wait_for_element_absent, or assert_element. No exclusions or alternative-referencing guidance is provided.

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