wait_for_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the default 7-second timeout for 0 or None, and states that an exception is raised if the element is not visible within the timeout. This goes beyond a simple restatement of the tool name, though it does not cover polling behavior or exact matching details.

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 with no filler. The primary behavior comes first, followed by timeout defaults and failure behavior, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 main behavior, default timeout, and exception on failure, which is sufficient for a simple wait utility. Since an output schema is available, return-value details are not required. Minor gaps include no mention of the selector default or how quickly polling occurs, but these do not block correct usage.

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 clarifies that `text` is a substring match and explains the timeout default semantics for 0 or None, which is valuable. However, it does not explain the `selector` parameter, relying on the schema's default value instead.

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's action: wait until a text substring appears within an element. It is distinct from sibling element-wait tools because it focuses on text content, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with assert_text or wait_for_element_visible.

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 gives a clear context: use when you need to wait for text to appear rather than immediately asserting or checking. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives, but the wait-for-text purpose is immediately evident.

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