firefox_wait_for

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention blocking behavior, timeout handling, or return value. The timeoutMs parameter is in the schema but omitted from the description, leaving the agent unaware of timing implications.

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 very concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the list of wait types but lacks structured explanation of parameters or behavior.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the return value is, or how to handle outcomes like timeout or failure.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameters but does not. It fails to explain 'value', 'frameRef', or 'timeoutMs', which are critical for correct invocation.

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 text, selector, navigation, URL substring, load completion, or focus state, which distinguishes it from sibling action tools. However, it lacks specificity about the context of waiting (e.g., page vs. element).

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like firefox_snapshot or firefox_find. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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