sleeper_wait_dialog

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, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the call blocks, what timeout means, what happens on timeout, which dialog types are caught, or whether the dialog must be dismissed with sleeper_dialog.

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 not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because nothing of substance is present. Brevity here comes at the cost of all useful information.

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, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool in a large browser-automation family, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the timeout semantics, dialog type coverage, or how this relates to sleeper_dialog.

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?

Four parameters exist with only 25% schema description coverage (just the profile field). The description explains none of them — not the meaning of tab, text (matching text of the dialog?), or timeout_ms units/behavior — leaving three parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

"Wait for dialog" merely restates the tool name with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this from sibling wait tools (sleeper_wait, sleeper_wait_text, sleeper_wait_until, sleeper_wait_url) or explain that it is specifically for browser dialogs like alert/confirm/prompt.

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 guidance on when to use this versus sleeper_wait or the other wait variants, nor when not to. The only hint is the implied context from the name itself, with no prerequisites, ordering, or alternatives stated.

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