Wait for

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

The description discloses a key internal behavior (MutationObserver) and notes that it returns instantly when the text shows up. However, it does not explain behavior when multiple parameters are combined, what happens on timeout, or what happens if no parameters are provided—leaving some behavioral uncertainties.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one valuable implementation detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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 description is appropriate for a simple tool but lacks guidance on edge cases like empty parameters, conflicting parameters, timeout errors, and return value. This leaves some practical gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters clearly, so the description adds limited extra meaning. It does not clarify relationships between text, textGone, and time, or how timeout applies when both text and textGone are set, but the individual parameter explanations are adequate.

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 a specific action: wait for text to appear or disappear, or wait for a fixed time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_find or browser_snapshot by focusing on the waiting behavior rather than querying or inspecting the page.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a script needs to pause until a text appears, disappears, or for a fixed duration. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like browser_find or browser_snapshot, so there is slight room for ambiguity.

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