wait_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only names the supported load-state values and does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether the call can fail, what the return value means, or if the wait is event-driven or polling-based.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly names the operation, the resource, and the accepted values, earning its place without redundant detail.

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 wait utility, the description is minimally sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves return semantics and timeout-failure behavior ambiguous. An agent can invoke the tool, but it cannot know what success or timeout will look like from the provided definition.

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 100%, and the schema already explains state, session, lease, and timeout_ms in detail, including the unique-session guidance. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation (wait) and resource (page load state) and lists the three accepted states. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling wait tools such as wait_selector, wait_url, and wait_fn, which target different conditions.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many wait-related siblings, nor does it mention typical workflows like navigating before waiting. It does not provide examples, exclusions, or routing to alternatives such as wait_selector or wait_url.

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