session_wait

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

The description discloses a lot beyond the annotations: it polls every 200ms, uses a 10000ms default timeout, returns as soon as the condition holds, fails with a named error instead of hanging, and specifies the exact return shape for each condition. Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them.

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 dense but every sentence adds useful information: purpose, wait conditions, return shapes, timeout behavior, polling interval, and failure mode. It is front-loaded with the main purpose before going into mechanics.

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 tool with four well-documented parameters, no output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what conditions exist, what happens on success/failure, defaults, and polling behavior.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds context about behavior, such as how the value relates to URL and selector conditions, but does not significantly extend the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 what the tool does: it blocks until a page reaches a known state, then releases so the next tool can act on a settled page. It names the three wait conditions (load, URL substring, selector), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_navigate or session_snapshot that perform actions or read state.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: before a subsequent tool acts on a page that must be fully loaded or settled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended placement in a workflow is clear enough.

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