browser_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state that the tool waits until a condition is met and returns a snapshot, but it omits timeout behavior, what happens if the expected text never appears or disappears, and whether this is a read-only operation.

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 a single compact sentence with concrete examples and a clear return signal. The slash-separated conditions create slight ambiguity, but the structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

All three parameters are optional in the schema and there is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description needs to clarify valid input combinations and edge-case behavior. An agent cannot tell what a bare call with no arguments does or how long it will wait, which is a significant gap.

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 prose needs to carry parameter meaning. It maps 'time' to seconds, 'text to appear' to text, and 'text to disappear' to text_gone, which is helpful. But it does not clarify whether exactly one condition must be supplied, what happens if multiple are supplied, or what a call with no parameters does.

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 identifies a wait action with three trigger conditions: elapsed time, text appearing, and text disappearing, and states it returns a snapshot. This is specific enough to distinguish it from related browser tools like browser_snapshot or browser_screenshot, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 examples 'Application submitted' and 'spinners' imply this tool is for waiting on async UI updates after actions, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against sibling tools that also return snapshots.

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