wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool waits a specified number of seconds and caps at 10, which is transparent about the basic behavior. However, it does not mention whether the wait is unconditional, whether it returns anything, or whether it interacts with page load state beyond 'settle'.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint. Every part serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple one-parameter wait tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the parameter, and the intended context. It could mention that the wait is a fixed delay rather than a condition-based wait, but overall it gives enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the parameter is a duration in seconds and includes the maximum value, but the parameter name 'seconds' and schema constraints already convey much of this. The description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 identifies the action ('Wait N seconds') and the resource/context ('for the page to settle'), so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the operation is distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 'for the page to settle' implies when the tool should be used, but it does not provide explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent gets a general sense of use but no concrete guidance on when not to use it or when a different tool would be better.

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