browser_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the mode semantics and gives an example with 'networkidle', but does not disclose timeout behavior, failure handling, or implications of waiting on a condition. This is a moderate level of transparency for a wait operation.

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 structured with 'Purpose', 'Constraints', and 'Example' sections. Each sentence provides essential information 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?

The tool is a wait operation, and the description covers the main modes and an example. However, it omits important operational details such as timeout limits, default wait behavior, and what happens when the condition cannot be met. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are not required, but the missing failure semantics makes it incomplete for robust use.

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 0%, so the description's explanations are critical. It adds meaning for the 'value' parameter by mapping each condition to the expected format, and it explains the 'condition' enum variants. The 'session' parameter is not described, but its role is implied by sibling context and the example.

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 explicitly states 'Wait for a condition before continuing' and enumerates specific condition types (selector, ms, text, url, load), distinguishing it from sibling browser action tools like browser_act or browser_read.

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 'Constraints' section explains how the condition parameter selects the mode and what value should contain for each mode (CSS selector, milliseconds, text, URL glob). This gives clear context for use, though it does not discuss exclusions or alternative tools.

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