ff_wait_for

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the need for a bridge add-on and that it operates on a real Firefox, but omits details like timeout behavior, error handling, or whether the tool modifies state. This is insufficient for a wait tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality. It is concise, but could include necessary parameter details without becoming 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description lacks critical details for effective use. It omits behavior on timeout, error handling, and full parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description only explains the 'selector' parameter as a CSS selector. It does not clarify 'tabId' (optional) or 'timeoutMs' (timeout meaning, default, etc.). Minimal value added beyond the schema.

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 tool waits for a CSS selector to appear on a real Firefox tab, specifically for dynamic/scraped pages. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wait_for' (likely for standard browser) by emphasizing 'real tab' and 'REAL running Firefox'.

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?

It explicitly says it's for dynamic/scraped pages and requires the bridge add-on, providing clear usage context. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings like non-ff wait_for.

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