Wait for condition

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

The description explains key behavioral traits: that present/visible/enabled/text require a selector, text/url/title require text matched as substring, and that it waits for the condition. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It lacks details on timeout behavior or error handling, but covers core usage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and condition types. Every sentence adds value, avoiding any redundancy. The structure is efficient for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains the core waiting concept and parameter dependencies. However, it lacks details on return values or what happens on timeout/failure, which the schema alone doesn't cover. The sibling 'inspect_page' might share similar conditions, but no differentiation is made.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between condition types and required parameters (e.g., 'present/visible/enabled/text require a selector; text/url/title require text'). This bridges gaps between parameters, though it does not detail the 'frame' parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 until a condition holds, with specific verb+resource ('Wait for condition'). It lists the condition types and distinguishes itself from sleeping after an action, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'navigate'.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this instead of sleeping after an action'), providing clear guidance on avoiding poor alternatives. However, it does not specify when not to use it or which sibling would be more appropriate for different scenarios, such as synchronous checks.

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