sleep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't explain blocking behavior, whether it's synchronous, what it does during the sleep, whether it processes pending browser events, or any side effects. For an automation tool that pauses execution, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

It is extremely short ('sleep(2)'), which is concise, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no front-loaded information problem since there's almost nothing there, but one line cannot carry the required content for a 1-param tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 1-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely underwhelming. It doesn't state the effect on the page/browser, whether events are processed during sleep, minimum/maximum reasonable values, or interaction with other wait-type siblings. A single clarifying sentence about blocking behavior and valid ranges would make it adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'seconds' parameter. The parameter is a number with no constraints, no default, no range, and no units clarification (seconds vs milliseconds) in the schema. The description merely echoes 'sleep' and provides no additional meaning about the seconds parameter, such as allowed ranges or precision.

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 'sleep(2)' is essentially a restatement of the function signature/name. It provides no natural-language explanation of what the tool does beyond the implied 'sleep for a duration.' This is a tautology—it repeats the name without adding meaning about the verb, resource, or side effects.

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 vs alternatives like wait_for_load, wait_for_network_idle, or drain_events, which are all sibling tools that also involve waiting. The context clearly calls for guidance on timing/waiting scenarios, but the description offers nothing.

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