Wait for a CSS selector to appear on the current page (for async/SPA pages after a click or navigate, before you snapshot/act). Returns ok once present, else an honest timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | Yes | CSS selector to wait for | |
| browser_id | Yes | from browse_open | |
| timeout_ms | No | max wait (default 8000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare safety. Description adds truthful timeout notification ('honest timeout') but no new behavioral details beyond that.
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?
Extremely concise two sentences. Purpose, context, and return value are front-loaded. No wasted 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?
For a simple wait tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete. Return value and timeout behavior are stated. No output schema needed.
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?
Input schema fully covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Clear verb ('wait') and resource ('CSS selector on current page'). Context explicitly states use case: async/SPA pages after click/navigate, before snapshot/act. Distinguishes from siblings like browse_snapshot which require element presence.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use context: after click/navigate for async pages. States return behavior. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.