browser_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions waiting for an element and supports selectors, but does not disclose behavior on timeout (e.g., error thrown), default timeout, or whether it blocks until element appears. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 sentences with no filler. Every word adds value: states verb, resource, and supported selectors. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not mention return values (e.g., success indication) or error conditions (e.g., timeout). It could also clarify that this is typically used before other actions like clicks or fills. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so description adds value beyond schema by providing examples of text-based selectors (e.g., 'text=Success', 'button:text(Next)'). This clarifies the format for the selector parameter, which the schema alone does not demonstrate.

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 the action ('Wait for an element') and the resource ('on the page'), and distinguishes from siblings like browser_wait_for_network by specifying element waiting with CSS/text selectors.

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 usage context (wait before interacting) but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives, nor provide exclusions. The sibling list includes other waiting/action tools, but no guidance is given.

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