wait_for

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 states the core waiting behavior (appear, disappear, visibility change), but doesn't mention what happens on timeout, whether it polls, or if it returns immediately when the condition is already met. 'Change visibility' is vague about DOM attachment states, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation, though more behavioral detail could be added without harming 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?

Combined with a rich schema, the description provides a basic operational picture for a wait tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description is thin on context such as when to use it in a workflow (e.g., before assertions or clicks) and what the return value signifies. This is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to select and invoke correctly 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 100%, with all four parameters (selector, state, target, timeout) having clear types, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It doesn't compensate with extra context that would aid invocation.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: waiting for an element to change its state. The verb 'wait' and resource 'element' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling actions like click/type/navigate. However, 'change visibility' is ambiguous and doesn't fully map to the schema's state enum (attached/detached), which could confuse an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention synchronization before interactions, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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