wait_for_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool polls every 1 second, but it does not describe behavior on timeout, failure, return values, or whether it waits for visibility vs. existence. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 is concise and directly states the core behavior. However, it is perhaps too terse given the tool's parameter complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It omits return behavior, timeout failure semantics, and any context about how selectors or strategies are used. The schema provides some structural hints, but the description does not make the tool safely callable in varied scenarios.

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 only 20%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain selector, strategy, platform, deviceId, or timeout semantics beyond the single schema description on timeout. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action and resource: 'Wait for a UI element to appear'. It also adds a concrete detail about polling frequency. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool find_element, though the wait-vs-find distinction is somewhat implicit.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_element, or when waiting would be necessary. The polling detail implies a usage context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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