wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Wait' without explaining whether it blocks, how timeouts are handled, what happens on timeout, or whether it can wait for multiple condition types. The lack of any behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing about side effects and execution semantics.

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 vague sentence that is brief but not effective. It lacks front-loaded specifics and does not earn its place, as 'various conditions' adds minimal value. A concise description should still convey key details; this one is under-specified.

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 has 3 parameters, an enum type, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of the three wait types, expected return values, or error behavior. The sibling context suggests a browser automation tool but does not compensate for the missing information.

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%, with each parameter (type, value, timeout) having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'various conditions', so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics.

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 'Wait for various conditions' provides a clear verb and object but remains vague about what specific conditions are supported. It does not mention the selector, navigation, or timeout types defined in the schema, nor does it distinguish itself well from sibling tools. This is not a tautology but lacks the specificity expected for a useful purpose statement.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like click or navigate. It does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or any exclusions. With no context on usage, the agent is left to infer from the schema and sibling names.

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