wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the wait is blocking, if there is a maximum time, or what happens after the wait. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare fact of waiting, leaving the agent to assume the operational 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 short phrase, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity is excessive, bordering on under-specification. It does not waste words, but it also fails to communicate essential information, making the conciseness less of a virtue.

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 tool, a description might reasonably be short, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and any behavioral or usage context leaves the description incomplete. It doesn't mention return value, blocking behavior, or typical use cases, which is surprising given the surrounding browser automation context.

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 0% and the description only adds the unit 'seconds' implicitly. It does not explain the meaning of 'a' beyond that, nor does it give range constraints, defaults, or edge cases. The description adds minimal value over the schema, which only declares an integer with no description.

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 '等待a秒' (wait a seconds) states a verb and resource but is essentially a tautology – it repeats the tool name and parameter without explaining what waiting means in this context. It does distinguish from sibling tools (others are actions), but the purpose is vague and under-specified, lacking any clarification of what the wait accomplishes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description provides no context such as 'use this to pause between actions' or 'use this after navigation to wait for page load', which would be expected given the sibling tools are browser automation actions.

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