wait_seconds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool blocks the MCP server and performs no browser action while waiting, which accurately conveys the side effect and limitation. It does not discuss edge cases like zero/negative values or cancellation, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by usage context, the alternative, and parameter details. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, the description covers what the tool does, when to avoid it, what alternative to prefer, and what the parameter means. Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required. No critical information is missing.

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 explain the parameter. It adds meaning by stating that seconds is "Number of seconds to block" and clarifying that it may be an integer or float. It could explicitly state that the value must be non-negative, but the explanation is otherwise sufficient for this simple single-parameter tool.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: "Block the MCP server for a fixed number of seconds." It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling wait_for by calling itself a low-level timing tool that performs no browser action.

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 explicitly says when not to use it: "should not be used when waiting for a page condition." It also names the alternative, wait_for, and explains why wait_for is preferable for element/text conditions because it returns as soon as the condition is met.

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