arc_wait_for

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 states the tool waits until the element 'appears' but does not disclose important behavioral aspects such as timeout behavior, return value, or whether it scrolls. The agent lacks insight into error conditions (e.g., timeout exception) or side effects.

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, clear sentence in Japanese with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 is simple, but the description lacks details about return values, timeout behavior, and element detection specifics (e.g., visibility vs. presence). Without an output schema, these gaps reduce completeness. However, the description is adequate for a basic wait operation given the schema covers parameters.

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% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema (e.g., '待機するテキスト（部分一致）'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that it waits for text or selector. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: waiting until specified text or selector appears on the page. It uses specific verbs (待機する – wait) and resources (テキストまたはセレクタ – text or selector), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arc_click or arc_fill.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage when waiting for element appearance, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to other wait mechanisms. Since sibling tools do not include other wait tools, the need for such guidance is lower but still absent.

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