zen_wait

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as whether the wait is blocking or asynchronous, the precision of the wait, and any side effects (e.g., does it freeze the UI or allow other operations?). No annotations are provided to fill these gaps, so the description carries the full burden.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or front-loaded key info. Nonetheless, it is efficient and not verbose.

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 the basic purpose. However, it omits context such as whether the wait can be interrupted or if there is a maximum duration. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more detail would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'ms' parameter. The tool description adds no new meaning; the purpose of the parameter is already clear from the schema. Without additional insight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Wait) and the resource (a specified number of milliseconds). The name 'zen_wait' and the description together unambiguously define the tool's function, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other actions like clicking, navigating, or filling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that waiting should be used sparingly or that there might be more reliable synchronization methods (e.g., waiting for elements). Given the context of browser automation, such advice would be valuable.

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