browser_wait_for_selector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'wait for element to appear' without explaining whether it throws on timeout, how the state parameter alters waiting behavior, or what happens on failure. This is a major gap for a synchronization tool.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, with no redundancy or filler. However, it is so minimal that it omits essential context, placing it below a perfect score.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient. It lacks details on timeout behavior, return values, state semantics, and usage context, especially among numerous sibling wait tools.

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 details. It does not explain the selector, state, or timeout fields, so the agent must rely on the schema's names and enum values alone.

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 '等待元素出现' (wait for element to appear) clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling wait tools that target URLs, requests, responses, or functions, but does not explicitly clarify the meaning of 'appear' or mention the state parameter.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool compared to alternatives like browser_wait_for_url or browser_wait_for_function, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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