browser_wait_for_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action of waiting for a URL match without explaining whether it polls, throws on timeout, or what the return value is. This is a minimal restatement of the tool's purpose.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits critical details needed for correct usage, so it fails to be 'appropriately sized'—it's too brief to be useful.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description still leaves major gaps: matching behavior, timeout behavior, return values, and error handling. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'URL' but doesn't clarify the expected format (string, regex, glob) or the 'timeout' parameter semantics. No additional meaning is provided beyond the parameter names.

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URL匹配' clearly indicates the tool waits for a URL to match, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wait_for_selector and wait_for_timeout, though it doesn't specify the matching rule (exact, regex, glob).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_wait_for_request or browser_wait_for_function. No context is given about typical use cases or exclusions.

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