browser_wait_for_load_state

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it only restates that the tool waits for a page load state. It does not explain blocking semantics, timeout behavior, return values, or error conditions. The schema's timeout parameter hints at behavior, but the description itself adds little beyond the obvious.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, containing no filler words. However, it borders on under-specification: a few additional contextual words about the available states or timeout behavior would make it more helpful without sacrificing conciseness.

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 wait tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to explain what each load state means, what happens on timeout, or how this tool relates to sibling wait tools. The schema provides enum values but not enough context for reliable selection and invocation.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The enum values (load, domcontentloaded, networkidle) are self-explanatory, and 'timeout' is a standard parameter, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions or clarify how these values affect the wait.

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 '等待页面加载状态' (wait for page load state) clearly indicates a specific verb and resource: waiting for a page's loading state. It is not a tautology and is easily understood, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling wait tools such as browser_wait_for_selector or browser_wait_for_url.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling wait tools (browser_wait_for_selector, browser_wait_for_url, browser_wait_for_timeout, etc.). The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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