wait_url

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Wait until the URL matches a glob/regex' but does not mention timeout behavior (though the schema has a timeout_ms), what happens on timeout, whether it polls continuously, what it returns on success/failure, or how the pattern is interpreted (glob vs regex). This is a significant gap for a blocking tool.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it instantly readable. Every word earns its place, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too brief to be complete. It omits return behavior, failure handling, pattern syntax specifics, and how it interacts with sessions/leases. An agent would need to infer or test to use it correctly, which is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification that 'pattern' is a glob/regex, which is not fully captured in the schema's vague 'URL pattern'. However, it does not elaborate on lease, session, or timeout parameters, which the schema already describes adequately. Overall, the description provides minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb 'Wait' and a specific resource 'URL' with a condition 'matches a glob/regex'. This distinguishes it from sibling wait tools like wait_selector (for selectors), wait_load (for load events), and wait_fn (for custom functions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that wait_selector should be used for element presence or that wait_load is for page load events. The description simply states what it does without any when/when-not context.

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