wait_seconds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the server is blocked and that no browser action occurs during the wait, which is essential for agents deciding whether this is safe or appropriate.

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 tight and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated first, exclusions and alternative guidance second, and parameter documentation last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter timing utility with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what happens, what does not happen, and which sibling to prefer. Nothing essential is missing.

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 defines 'seconds' as the number of seconds to block and clarifies that integers or floats are allowed, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the raw type union.

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 verb ('block') and resource ('MCP server'), with an explicit duration in seconds. It distinguishes itself from wait_for by declaring it a low-level timing tool that performs no browser action.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it (waiting for a page condition) and names the alternative wait_for with the reason it is preferable. No ambiguity about selection.

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