wait_for_load

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

Given no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions polling and 'no listener leaks', which is a useful implementation detail. However, it omits timeout behavior (e.g., does it throw or return false?), error handling, and return value, leaving gaps in predictability.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with an example usage. It avoids fluff, but the structure is a single line with mixed language and minimal formatting. It could be improved with bullet points, but it is efficient and gets the point across.

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 polling tool, the description covers the core action (polling readyState) and a key behavioral trait (no listener leaks). However, it lacks details on timeout semantics, what readyState value is targeted, and what the function returns. With no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for an agent.

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?

The description explains the 'tab' parameter's default behavior ('if not passed, waits for current active tab'), adding value beyond the schema. However, the 'timeout' parameter is completely undocumented, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 polls document.readyState, implying it waits for page load. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_download (downloads) and wait_for_network_idle (network). However, it does not explicitly state the final readyState condition (e.g., 'complete'), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where waiting for document.readyState is preferable, nor any exclusion criteria. Only a minor note about tab default behavior, which is parameter-related, not usage context.

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