sleeper_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say what state the selector must reach (attached, visible, enabled), what happens on timeout, whether an error is thrown or a falsy result returned, or how tab/profile context affects the wait.

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 words is terse but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded explanation of behavior. Nothing wasteful is present only because almost nothing is present.

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 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves almost everything an agent needs unanswered. There is no indication of the wait criterion, timeout behavior, tab targeting, or return semantics.

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 only 25% – just the 'profile' parameter is documented in the schema, while 'tab', 'timeout' and 'selector' have no descriptions. The description adds no unit, default, or semantics for 'timeout' and no meaning for 'tab', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap beyond naming 'selector'.

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 'Wait for selector' essentially restates the tool name plus the required parameter, giving no more than the name already implies. With siblings like sleeper_wait_text, sleeper_wait_until, sleeper_wait_url, sleeper_wait_dialog, sleeper_wait_xhr and sleeper_wait_download, it makes no attempt to distinguish what this variant waits on versus the others.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition for selecting this over sleeper_wait_text or sleeper_wait_until, and no mention of prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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