Wait for something on the page

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

The description conveys the core waiting behavior and clarifies that conditions are alternatives. Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. It does not disclose timeout failure behavior, polling semantics, or what happens if multiple conditions are passed, but for a simple wait operation the stated behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 one compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately enumerates the supported condition types, followed by the key invocation constraint.

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?

The core invocation details are covered by the schema and the at-least-one note. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what happens on timeout or what a successful wait returns, which an agent may need to know for robust usage.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics by mapping 'named text', 'CSS selector', and 'URL substring' to the optional text, selector, and url fields. It also adds the at-least-one constraint, which the schema does not enforce.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: wait for page conditions including text, CSS selector, or URL substring. This avoids tautology and gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like steel_find or steel_snapshot.

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 phrase 'Wait for...' implies the tool should be used when a page condition must be awaited, and 'pass at least one' gives a necessary precondition. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives 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.