wait_for_element

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It omits timeout behavior (e.g., what happens if element not found within timeout) and does not mention that it can wait for multiple conditions beyond visibility.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and various conditions, a slightly more detailed description would be more helpful without sacrificing brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return value, error handling, or default behavior. The tool has many siblings and requires more context to be fully usable.

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?

Input schema already describes all four parameters (selector, by, timeout, condition) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Wait until an element is visible', but the tool also supports waiting for clickable, present, and invisible conditions. This narrow focus on visibility is misleading and fails to differentiate from sibling assert_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assert_element_visible or wait_for_network_idle. The description does not indicate prerequisites, errors, or typical use cases.

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